new integrated geophysical approach for the rational...

A new integrated geophysical approach for the rational management and exploration of

groundwater resources 2nd annual report

European Commission of Communities European Project INCO-DC No CT960122

November 1998 R 40368

A new integrated geophysical approach for the rational management and exploration of

groundwater resources 2nd annual report

European Commission of Comrnunities European Project INCO-DC No CT960122

A. Legchenko, A. Beauce

November 1998 R 40368

3 - ' - -

BRGM L~,",.,.",,, A" ~ M C . 0 ~ 0.nm.E

lntegrated geophysical approach for management and exploration of groundwater resources

Key words : Geophysics, Groundwater, Proton magnetic resonance, Israel, Cypms.

This report should be referred as :

Legchenko A., Beauce A. (1998) - Integrated geophysical approach for management and exploration of groundwater resources. 2nd annual report. Rap. BRGM R 40368,55 p., 45 fig., 2 aPP.

O BRGM, 1998, ce document ne peut être reproduit en totalité ou en partie sans I'autorisation expresse du BRGM. .

Rapport BRGM R 40368


Abstract

Within the framework of the CCE-INCO project N018CT960122 untitled "A new integrated geophysical approach for the rational management and exploration of groundwater resources", two Proton Magnetic Resonance (PMR) surveys were carried out in 1998. Totally 62 PMR soundings were perfonned. NUMIS PMR equipment fabricated by IRIS INSTRUMENTS was used for field work.

30 proton magnetic resonance (PMR) soundings were performed in Israel. 7 of them were carried out in the Nitzanim area and 23 others in the Dead Sea area. As it was shown in 1997 during the first phase of the project, combination of PMR and TDEM may increase reliability of field data interpretations, especially in areas with salty water intrusions. For this reason Dead Sea PMR survey performed by BRGM was accompanied also by TDEM measurements provided by IPRG.

32 PMR soundings were realized in Cypms. 28 of them were carried out in Xylophagou area along three parallel profiles which cross over a known fault zone. This fault zone separates reef limestone and fractured sandstone areas. More than five folds variation in both the water content and the decay time were observed. It leaves no doubt about correct detection of the fault position which is also confirmed by boreholes. 2D maps and 3D images allowed us to visualize the fault location. Main aquifer in this area was reasonably well resolved in the northern part of the profile where the subsurface is composed essentially of fractured sandstone fulfilled with clay-type material. However, in the southem part of the profile where aquifers are composed of reef limestone, a great discrepancy between boreholes and PMR data was revealed. While boreholes indicate presence of water at a depth of 50-60 m, the PMR logs clearly indicate that a quite significant arnount of water is located at about 5-10 m al1 over the limestone area. As PMR data are very consistent and of very good quality, some physical explanation should be found for this phenomenon. Observed results could be explained for example by very low magnetization of the limestone. In this case, the decay time of the PMR signal from the bounded water might be as long as the decay time from the free water. Therefore PMRmethod would not measure only the free water as in a typical case, but the total water (bounded water + free water). To verify this hypothesis, limestone samples are taken for laboratory examination and additional field study in Cypms is foreseen to be carried out in 1999.



Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 7

1 . Some basic principles of the Surface Proton magnetic resonance method ................ 9

1.1. The PMR method ......................................................................................................... 9 1.2. Influence of the rock electrical conductivity on the PMR data interpretation .......... 10

.................................................................................... 1.3. The NUMIS PMR equipment 14

2 . PMR suwey in Israel .................................................................................................. 15 2.1. Site operations ............................................................................................................ 15 2.2. Results ........................................................................................................................ 16

................................................................................................... 2.2.1. The Nitzanim area 16 2.2.2. The Dead Sea area ................................................................................................... 20 . . 2.2.3. Stability of PMR results .......................................................................................... 28

3 . PMR survey in Cyprus ............................................................................................... 33

3.1. Equipment and site operations ................................................................................... 33 " ........................................................................................................................ 3.2. Results 24

" 2.2.1. The Xylophagou area .............................................................................................. 34

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 45

References ........................................................................................................................ 47

List of figures ................................................................................................................... 51

List of tables ..................................................................................................................... 53

List of appendices ............................................................................................................ 55


lntegrated geophysical approach for management and exploration of groundwafer resources

Introduction

In the framework of the European INCO Project N018CT960122 untitled "A new integrated geophysical approach for the rational management and exploration of groundwater resources", two geophysical surveys were carried out by BRGM in 1998.

30 Proton Magnetic Resonance (PMR) soundings were perfomed in Israel in two distinct areas located near the Mediterranean Sea Coast and at nearby the Dead Sea area.

In Cyprus, 32 PMR soundings were perfomed in the Xylophagou, Phinikas, Aradhippou and Menoyia regions.

This report is divided into three sections. One section is dedicated to some basic principles of the PMR method. In two others the work planning and logistics aspects followed by a description of the preliminary geophysical results deduced from these surveys are presented.



1. Some basic principles of the Surface Proton magnetic resonance method

1 .l. The PMR method

Surface Proton Magnetic Resonance method for water prospecting (PMR) is known since early eighties (Semenov et al., 1987). It is one of the most recently developed geophysical tool. Measurements of the magnetic resonance signal from subsurface proton-containing liquids make the method sensitive to water or hydrocarbons. However, taking into account that the maximum depth of investigation is limited by 100-150 m, only water should be considered as a target.

The PMR equipment consists of a wire loop (typically 300 m of wire) and an electronic unit. The loop is laid down on the surface in a shape of circle or square. It is energized by a pulse

of altemating current of specific frequency w (Larmor frequency)

Magnetic resonance signal e(t,q) is measured after the excitation pulse is terminated.

Oscillating with the Larmor frequency, the signal has an exponential envelope

e ( t , q ) = e o ( q ) e x ~ ( - t l T : ) c o s ( w o t + ~ o ) , (1.2)

where q = 1 z is the pulse parameter. The amplitude e(t,q) depends on the bulk volume of

subsurface water and its depth. The decay time T; depends on the very local (order of rocks

grain size) inhomogeneities of the geomagnetic field caused by rocks. When rocks are non- magnetic only the bounded water is affected by the magnetization of grains and the decay

time of the PMR signal from bounded water is short ( T ; < 30 ms). However, the free water

in pores is in rather homogeneous geomagnetic field and consequently the decay time for the

free water is long ( T : > 30 ms). As an integral signal is measured, its decay time depends on

the proportion of bounded and free water in the subsurface. It was found empirically that usually in sand and clay aquifers measured decay time correlates with the mean size of pores

of water-saturated rocks: T i < 30 ms for clay layers; and Ti > 70 ms for sand aquifers

(Schirov et al., 1991). Taking into account that only relatively long signals (TI > 30 ms) can

be detected by available PMR instruments it could be said that the PMR method detects only the free water. In magnetic rocks, even the free water is affected by the magnetization of



grains and the PMR signal decays very rapidly. It limits application of the PMR in magnetic rocks environment.

Vertical distributions of both the water content kercentage of the free water per unit volume in the subsurface) and the decay time for each sounding are resolved by inversion of field data (Legchenko and Shushakov, 1998).

Commonly the PMR is used for water prospecting. However, it also can be applied to geological studies. In this case subsurface water is employed as a natuTa1 tracer and observed variations in the water content and decay time which may correspond to different geological structures are analysed. Some typical examples may help for this analysis:

1). No PMR signal is observed al1 over the investigated area.

Nothing can be deduced from PMR measurements. Absence of the signal might be caused by two reasons. First (most common case) is that the amount of fiee water in the subsurface is below the detection threshold of the PMR equipment. Another reason is a high magnetization of rocks (basalt for example). Most probably application of the PMR would not be effective in this case.

2). The PMR signal does not Vary al1 around the studied area. The subsurface is composed of water-saturated rocks which produce similar PMR signals. Quite often it may indicate that the subsurface is homogeneous.

3). Variations in both the water content and the decay time are observed.

Some additional geological information is necessaq for the interpretation of PMR data. No theoretical mode1 is available by now to distinguish between different rocks. However, calibration of the PMR response from known rocks could be performed. This calibration may help in interpretation of data al1 over investigated area. For example, in sand and clay environment, PMR data usually indicate intercalation of sand and clay. Generally, signals with shorter decay time correspond to larger amount of clay. In hard rocks it is a typical case which indicates existence of zones with different degree of fracturation.

1.2. Influence of the rock electrical conductivity on the PMR data interpretation

Assuming homogeneity of the geomagnetic field and horizontal stratification, the amplitude of the PMR signal may be calculated as

1 where K(q,z) = m o M o h lL sin(@ )dm+, @=-yhlLq, q = I o z is the pulse parameter, -I,Y

2

h = h lL(r,p(r), a) = H I o , Ar) is the rock resistivity, L = 2 D where D is the antenna's

diameter, n(z) is the water content (Oln(z) < 1), and r =v(x,y,z) (Shushakov and Legchenko, 1994a). Taking into account that the nuclear spin for protons is 112, we can also write for the nuclear magnetization



where f i and k are Planck and Boltzman's constants respectively, N is the ilurnber of protons per unit of volume and T is the temperature.

As the amplitude calculated using equation (1.3) obviously depends on the rocks resistivity p(r) , soine inodelization was performed in order to find out what kind of enors could be expected caused by the electrical conductivity of rocks.

First of all, the depth of investigation decreases due to the screening effect which attenuates the signal. This effect was investigated usiilg a half-space conductive mode1 and the one-m- thick layer of water in it. Results are presented in figure 1.1.

1 10 1 O0 1 O00 1000 half-space resistivity (ohm-m)

Fig. 1.1 - Mnxinzunz deptlt of watev detection in electricnlly conductive Izalf-space.

This attenuation is getting important when the resistivity of half-space is less than 50 olm-m (Shushakov and Legchenko, 1994a,b).

111 presence of electrically conductive layers not only simple attenuation of the signal is taking

place but also the shape of curve E o(q) changes. For example, the signal from a 10-m-thick

water-saturated layer caracterized by a water content of 20% was calculated respectively in a high conductive (3 ohm-m) and a low conductive (500 ohm-in) half-space. Results are shown in figure 1.2.



ZOO

160

z - 120 a, u 3 .- .- - n 80

!i 40

O

O 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 pulse parameter (A-ms)

model: 30 - 4 0 m, n=0.2 - 3 ohmm half-space - 500 ohmm half space

Fig. 1.2 - Synthetic signals from a 10-m-thick water-saturated layer in the ha&-space of different electntncal conductivity.

It is quite obvious that changes in the shape of the signal E o(q) "11 immediately cause some

changes in the results of the inversion. For demonstration purpose, the same signal as used in the previous example (figure 1.2) was calculated in a 3 ohm-m half-space. The inversions were then perîormed using two models. First model was calculated taking into account an erroneous 500 ohm-m half-space, and another model was calculated taking into account the correct 3 ohm-m half-space. Results are presented in figure 1.3.

Fig. 1.3 - Inversion of synthetic data using erroneous 500 ohm-m half-space (red lines), and correct 3 ohm-m half-space @lack lines).



As one can see, this mode1 is well resolved when the electrical conductivity of the half-space is taken into account correctly. Otherwise, large errors in both the water content and the water location are observed.

In order to verify results of the modelization, real data were used. The PMR sounding was performed in Israel in 1997. Both the PMR and TDEM data are available. Geophysical results are compared with the nearby borehole BH-123 data. Results are presented in figure 1.4. As in this real case the subsurface is less wnductive than for the previous modelization, the difference between the two inversions is also smaller. But the aquifer is better resolved when the real distribution of the resistivity is taken into account.

In fact, some other electromagnetic method can be used with the PMR for the same purpose. But the TDEM is preferable as:

both methods use the same transmitting loop, and hence it is very easy and natural to combine them;

* similar electromagnetic fields are transmitted by PMR and TDEM which gives smaller errors in 3D environment than when using the DC resistivity method for example.

We are now in the position to summarize the main reasons why the electrical conductivity of the subsurface should be taken into account for PMR soundings interpretation:

1. To know the real depth of investigation. 2. To improve the accuracy of aquifers resolution. 3. To avoid errors in the water content (and hence in water quantity) deduced from

PMR data.

resistiviiy (ohm-m) borehole RH-125 water content (%) decay time (ms)

w.fertible 0.0 2.0 4.0 1 10 100 IWO O 2 4 6 8

white s i n .oRchilk

PMR data TDEM data

Fig. 1.4 - Inversion of real data using erroneous 500 ohm-m half-space (red lines), and correct vaiue of the resistivity deduced from TDEM data @lack lines).



1.3. The NUMIS PMR equipment

The NUMIS instrument consists of an oscillating-current generator, a receiver, a PMR signal detector, an antenna and a microprocessor (figure 1.5). The antenna is used for both trailsmissioil of the oscillating magnetic field and reception of the PMR signal. The inicroprocessor switches the antenna fiom generator to receiver mode by an electronic switch. It also coiltrols the generation of the reference frequency equal to the Lannor frequency. An envelope of the signal from the phase-sensitive detector is recorded by the microprocessor in digital forin. A portable PC is used for data processing. The PC is coimected to the inicroprocessor by a standard RS-232 serial link. The NUMIS equipment is presented in figure 1.6.

Fi,. 1.5 - Sclzenzn of tlze NUMIS instrument.

Fig. 1.6 - Picture of tlze NUMIS equipment.



2. PMR survey in lsrael

2.1. Site operations

During the whole survey in Israel, one set of NUMlS equipment was used together with a Geonix proton magnetometer to measure magnitude of the geomagnetic field. A square loop with a side of 80 or 120 m was used for soundings where the noise level was not high. In noisy environment a square-eight antenna consisting of two squares of 38-m-side each was employed. Antenna geometries are presented in figure 2.1.

Fig. 2.1 - Antennas employed for PMR measurements.

PMR survey in Israel started on 24th of March until7th of April 1998. BRGMs geophysicist in charge of the survey was A. Legchenko. During this survey he was assisted by M. Goldman from IPRG and hydrogeologists from the same institute for the selection of the various sites of investigations. Two areas were investigated during the whole survey (figure 2.2).

Dead Sea

Fig. 2.2 -Location of PMR test sites in ZsraeL



Totally 30 PMR soundings were fulfilled in 24 different sites. In order to check repetitivity and stability of results six more soundings were performed at the same sites as standard ineasurements. Time chart of the field work and the references of the soundings are the followiilg :

Tub. 2.1 - Clzronogrnm of PMR survey in Israel, nrea names and refererzce numbers of tlze soundings.

2.2. RESULTS

2.2.1. The Nitzanim area

In 1998 seven soundings were performed in this area dong a 1-!un-long NW-SE profile. In addtition with the soundings performed in 1997, this survey is a good exanlple of the PMR perforinance in a given geological environment. The subsurface is essentially composed of fiactured saildstoile. An alternance of sands and irregular and discontinuous clayey layers is also typical for the geological formations of this area. Soundiilg and borehole locations map is presented in Figure 2.3. Row data and inversion results can be found in appendix 1. During the survey in Nitzanim in 1998 only 80-in-side square loop was used.

According to soine general observation an aquifer is resolved in Nitzanim by the PMR. The water content stay almost unchanged for al1 these soundings, i.e. around 15% to 20%. Decay tiines (see appendix 1) of al1 these soundings indicate values generally ranging fiom 100 ms up to about 200 ms, which are quite coinpatible with sandy aquifer formations. Phase diagrains clearly indicates the presence of highly conductive layers, which are characterized also by TDEM. As an example, such type of layer is detected at a depth of 30 in by TDEM located near PMR sounding isr 1 (1.5 ohm-m). In presence of such high electrical conductivity the investigation dep$ of the PMR method suffers. Consequently, due to this phenornena the bottoms of the water layers resolved by PMR might be deeper than their true values.



Fig. 2.3 -Location map of the PMR soundings performed in the Nitzanim area.

In order to check the repetitivity of results and accuracy of the water detection measurements along profile 1 were carried out. As the profile 1 is located immediately at the sea shore (figure2.4), the water table was expected to be very shallow. According to previous

Rapport BRGM R 40368 17


geological studies fulfilled by IPRG, no geological variation is expected along this profile. PMR results (the water content versus depth) are presented in figure 2.5. Al1 soundings are very similar and as no geological variations are expected, we believe that it proves stability and repetitivity of the PMR results. The water table is found to be very shallow which seems to be quite reasonable. One sounding (isr-24) reveals a bit deeper water table level. It could be explained by the fact that the beach was not wide enough and the loop was partly expanded on a sand dune slope. As 1D inversion does not take it into account, non-horizontal loop causes some modification in the result. According to PMR there is no free water below the depth of about 25 m. However local hydrogeologists believe that in this area the subsurface is saturated by water down to at least 100 m. Unfortunately, no boreholes data are available to verify bottom of this relatively shallow aquifer resolved by PMR.

Fig. 2.4 - PMR equipmentposition alongprojïle 1 in the Nitzanim area.

Results of the soundings realized in 1997 and 1998 along profile 2 which is perpendicular to profile 1 are presented in figure 2.6. In addition to PMR results TDEM data are also depicted. Top of the first aquifer resolved by PMR is in good agreement with borehole data. As a power line is located near borehole 12/A a eight-square antenna was used for two PMR soundings (isr-3 and isr-5). The maximum depth of penetration for this antenna is 40-45 m. Thus, we believe that bottom the aquifer is deeper than 45 m. It is the only information about the thickness of this aquifer which could be derived frorn PMR data. Using the 80-m-square loop the depth of investigation is about 80-100 m. It allows to resolve better the thickness of aquifers in Nitzanim. However, one should take into account that the accuracy of the method to resolve aquifers with this antenna at depths greater than 50 rn is not as good as for shallow layers. The TDEM data allow us to resolve the depth of the sea water intrusion with a high degree of reliability. Bottom of the fresh water layer is also depicted in figure 2.6 by dashed green line. Above this line the electrical conductivity is low, which is typical for fresh water aquifers. Below the red dashed line the electrical conductivity of the subsurface is very high and hence, if there is some water there, it is defmitely only salty water. Between the green and red dashed lines some transition zone between the fiesh and the sea water is located. In order to find out whether the bottom of the aquifer in Nitzanim is conectly resolved some modelization and boreholes data analysis is foreseen to be carried out in 1999.

18 Rapport BRGM R 40368

lnfegrated geophysical approach for managemenf and explorafion of groundwater resources

order to find out whether the bottom of the aquifer in Nitzanim is correctly resolved some modelization and boreholes data analysis is foreseen to be carried out in 1999.

distance (rn)

400 400 3 0 0 -200 -100 O 100 200 300 l l l ~ > l l l t l l l l l . l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l < l l l l < l l . l

O 10 20 O 10 20 O Io sea ievei

PMR: isr-24 PMR: isr-23 PMR: isr-21 PMR: isr-22

Fig. 2.5 - PMR data (water content versus depth) alongprofle 1 in the Nitzanim area

distance (in)

-100 O 100 200 300 400 5M) ûW 700 800 900 1000 1100 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 < 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

50

40

30

20

10

O - -10 - = -20 O s a a - m

MI

4 0

-70

-80

a0 - PMR -1 00 - - - - - - TDEM

PMR: isr-21

Fig. 2.6 - PMR (watm content versus depth) data and TDEM results alongprofle 2 in the Nitzanim area



2.2.2. The Dead Sea area

Exact locations of the PMR soundings are given in the following table :

Tab. 2.2 - Coordinates of the PMR soundings in Dead sea area.

In figure 2.7 the locations of the two boreholes T2 and T4 which were used for PMR results verification are presented. Two PMR soundings (dst-2 and dst-4) were performed nearby the boreholes. Results which compare borehole data and PMR results are depicted in figures 2.8 and 2.9. While for the sounding dst-2 (borehole T2) the 40 m eight-square loop was used, the sounding dst-4 (borehole T4) was performed with the 80-m-square loop. The water table deduced from PMR data correspond well to that measured in the boreholes. The bottom of the aquifer was not resolved in both cases which means that it is deeper than at least 70 m. Generally it is in agreement with hydrogeological data available in this area. Near borehole T4 some variations in the decay time are detected by PMR. However, this vaiation is not detected near borehole T2. Shorter value of the decay time in the shallow part of the resolved aquifer could be explained by the presence of a 5-m-thick layer of clay at the depth of 25 m which was revealed by the borehole and TDEM. This relatively thin layer is not resolved by PMR and it only causes a decrease in the decay time. Smaller amount of clay near borehole T2 was not detected neither by PMR nor by TDEM.

Rappott BRGM R 40368


Fig. 2.7 - Location map of the PMR soundings performed in the Dead Sea area (boreholes T2 and T4).



resistivity (ohm-m borehole T2 water content (%) decay time (ms)

watertable 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 1 10 100 1000

O O 5 5

10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25

30 30 30 35 35 35 - 40 40 40

45 45 50 50 55 55

v 60 60 60 65 65 65

pebbles 70 70 70

I"El mari 75 75 75 80 80 80 1=_I chdk 85 85 85 90 90 90 95 95 95

100 100 100

PMR data TDEM data

Fïg. 2.8 - PMR inversion results ut borehole T2.

resistivity (ohm-m borehole T4 water content (%) decay time (ms) 0

watertable 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 1 10 100 1000 - 9 z g O , O 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

100

PMR data TDEM data

Fig. 2.9 - PMR inversion results ut borehole T4.



In figure 2.10 the locations of the PMR soundings fulfilled in the Dead sea area (zone 1) are presented. Four soundings were performed dong profile 4 using a 120-m-square loop. The depth of investigation is expected to be around 80-100 m. Results of these measurements (the water content versus depth) are presented in figure 2.1 1. About 20-m-thick aquifers are resolved by the PMR at 10-15 m depth. Toward the Dead Sea shore (PMR sounding dso-l6B) the water table is found to be very shallow. To explain it, one should take into account that this sounding is located in heavy irrigated agricultural area. Joint hydrogeological interpretation of PMR and TDEM data allow to conclude that no sea water intrusion in this area is detected. For this interpretation we assume that the sea water has the electrical resistivity less that 1.5 ohm-m. For this reason we believe that the drop of resistivity revealed by TDEM is caused by agricultural activity and probably by some contamination in the aquifer.

Fig. 2.10 -Location map of the PMR soundingsperformed in the Dead Sea area (zone 1).



distance (m) -lW O 1W m 3W 400 m 603 7W 800 930 1030 llW

-293 -303 -310 -320 -330 340 -350 -3M) -370

E380 .5 a 3 -410 5 -420 " -430

440 450 -'?al -470 -480 -490 -m -51 O

Fis 2.11 - PMR profile 4 (water content versus depth) performed in the Dead Sea area (zone 1).

In figure 2.12 location of PMR soundings carried out in the Dead sea area (Ein Gedi) is presented. Eight square 40-m-loop was used in this area excluding dsa-1 sounding where 80- m-square loop was employed. Measurements were located along two profiles. In figure 2.13, PMR and TDEM results along profile 1 are depicted. A small shallow aquifer is detected in this area at a depth of 6-12 m. Another aquifer is also resolved by PMR at a depth of 25-35 m. This aquifer is well marked in dsa-1 and dsa-2 PMR logs. Toward dsa-3 PMR sounding this aquifers is getting smaller what correlates well with a noticeable change of geology dong this profile. The shallow aquifer and upper part of the main aquifers are fulfilled by fresh water (according to TDEM). However, at a depth of about 40 m the sea water intrusion is observed. As dsa - 2 sounding was canied out using a small loop, we believe that the thickness of the main aquifer is better resolved by dsa-1 sounding. It is also possible that the bottom of this aquifer is even deeper than resolved by PMR using 80-m-square antenna. With this antenna the PMR has the resolution down to about 50-60 m.

In fi,we 2.14 PMR and TDEM results along profile 2 are presented. Eight square 40-m-loop was used. Larger amount of water was discovered by PMR sounding dsv-1. This result is not in contradiction with the hydrogeological environment as a waterful sbieam is passing by.

In figures 2.1 5 and 2.16, PMR and TDEM results dong profile 3 are depicted. A square 8O-m- loop was used for these soundings. Some shallow water is detected by both measurements. The main aquifer is found at a depth of 40-45 m. Joint interpretation of PMR and TDEM suggests that water in both aquifers is fresh.



Fig. 2.12 -Location map of the PMR soundings performed in the Dead Sea area (Ein Gedi).



Fig. 2.13 - PMR profile 1 (water content versus depth) performed in the Dead Sea area (Ein Gedi).

distance (m) -2W O XO 400 MX) 8W IWO 1203 lm IMX) 18W MO

-280

-2%

-3W

-310

-320

-330

"O r -350 0 3 360

5 370

-380

393

4 W 1 0.79

410 - FTvR wdtw content (% 1 I

420 . - - - - TEM: resistivity (oh&)

-430 il

Fig. 2.14 - PMR profile 2 (water content versus depth) performed in the Dead Sea area (Ein Gedi).



Fig. 2.15 -Location map of the PMR soundings performed in the Dead Sea area (zone 2).



Fia. 2.16 - PMR profle 3 (water content versus depth) performed in the Dead Sea area (zone 2).

2.2.3. Stability of PMR results

In order to evaluate stability of the PMR results, various field experiments were carried out. Different configurations of the PMR equipment were tested and their respective results were compared with the standard configuration.

In figure 2.17, the amplitude and the decay time measured by PMR are depicted. For the antenna, two types of wire cross-section were used : 10 and 25 mm2. Taking into account that the noise level was about 1000 nV, the repetitivity of results may be considered as sufficiently good. Possibility of application of a IO mmz wire for the loop is an important factor for combined use of PMR and TDEM. In this case the same transmitting antenna can be used for both methods which increases the field work productivity.

Two soundings were performed with excitation pulses of different duration (40 and 60 ms). In figure 2.18 the raw data and in figure 2.1 9 the inversion results are presented. The decay time measurements are very consistent. There is some variation in the amplitudes, but this difference practically does not affect the inversion results. However, it should be noted that the decay time is rather long (about 200 ms) in this area. Othenvise increasing the pulse duration might have larger effect.

Within a few days interval, two soundings were performed at the same site (isr-1). Two different pieces of wire of 25 mmz were used for the loop. It was found out that the lengths of the wires were not exactly the same (320 and 308 m). In figure 2.20 the raw data and in



figure 2.21 the inversion results are presented. A small variations in the amplitudes was observed, but it practically does not affect the final result of the PMR application, i.e. the vertical distribution of the water content.

The shape of excitation pulse was modified as it is shown in figure 2.22. The PMR data are presented in figure 2.23. Practically no influence of the pulse shape is observed.

Two soundings were perfonned at the same site with two different antennae: 80-m-square and 120-m-square. Results are presented in figures 2.24 and 2.25. A shallow layer is resolved by both soundings. Parameters of this layer are quite similar in both cases. However using larger antenna allows to detect a deeper aquifer at a depth below 40 m. Two equivalent solutions are proposed for this deep aquifer (solid line and dashed line). According to TDEM results the sea water intrusion into this aquifer is detected (at a depth of 60 m).

Thus, it was demonstrated that some practically inevitable variations in equipment configuration do not affect much on the PMR results.

* I u w w i r e

80 + 25&wire

1000

60 - z - - E m n 3 40 * .- i - IO0 - >.

E Y u .CI

20

O I O

100 1000 10000 100 1000 1000 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

Fig. 2.1 7 - Influence of the wire cross-section.

Fig. 2.18 -Influence of the pulse duration on the PMR signal measured with the same loop.


lnfegrated geophysical approach for management and exploration of groundwater resources

water content (%) decay time (ms)

0.0 4.0 8.0 1 10 100 100 O 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

100 - DS016 (40 ms pulse) - - - - - DS01ûA (60 rns pulse)

Fig. 2.19 -Influence of thepulse duration on the PMR data inversion.

* Niranim, i sg l (loop: 320 m long) + Nizanim, isr-la iloop: 308 m long)

I O

- % 4 W - Ë - b> 0 m s E 1W E

- - a E m

?? O

O 10 1W IWO 1W lm IWO

puise parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

Fig. 2.20 -Influence of the wire length on the PMR signal measured with the same pulse duration.



water content (%) decay time (ms) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 1 10 100 1000

O O

5 5 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30 35 35 - 40 40

E 45 - 45 5 50 50 % 55 P

55 60 50 65 65 70 70 75 75 80 80 85 85 90 90 95 95

100 100 - Niranim. is- floop 320m long) ....- Niranim. isUa(1oop: 3W m long)

Fig. 2.21 -Influence of the wire length on the PMR data inversion.

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 time (ms)

Fig. 2.22 - Optimal and non-optimal pulses.

* DSOB (nanaptim pulse) + DÇOBA (optirml puise)

300 10W

- 2W - E -

&. z - - roo 5 - m s

0 5 100 D

O 10

1W IOW 10WO 1W lm 10W pulse panmeter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

Fig. 2.23 -Influence of thepulse shape on the PMR signal measured with the same pulse duration and the same loop.



resistiviiy (ohm-m) water content (%) decay time (ms) 9

0.0 4.0 9.0 12.0 1 10 100 1000 2 0 z s O O O 5 5 5

IO 10 10 15 15 15 20 20 20 25 25 25 30 30 30 35 35 35 40 40 40 45 45 45 50 50 50 55 55 55 60 60 60

E :; 65 65 70 70

5 75 75 75 80 80 80

TJ 85 85 85 90 90 90 95 95 95

1 O0 IO0 100 105 105 105 110 110 110 115 115 115 120 120 120 125 125 125 130 130 130 136 135 135 140 140 140 145 145 145 150 150 150

TDEV data

Fig. 2.24 - PMR sounding dso - 16A (with 80 m square antenna).

water content (%) r resistiviiy (ohm-m decay time (ms)

1 10 100 1000 2 9 , 2 ; , ,

T M data

Fig. 2.25 - PMR sounding dso - 16B (with 120 m square antenna).



3. PMR survey in Cyprus

3.1. EQUlPMENT AND SITE OPERATIONS

NUMIS PMR system, together with 2 antennas 100m-dianeter-wide (wire 0 : 10 mm2) to allow flexibility during the survey, was sent to Cyprus. The overall equipment was sent on 1st of Jule and cane back to BRGM on 24th of June 1998. Total weight of this expedition was 371 kg dispatched il16 boxes.

The PMR s w e y in Cypms started 011 8th of June until20th of June 1998. A. Legchenko was the BRGM's scientist in charge of this survey. During the overall survey period, A. Legchenlco was assisted by S. Kramvis fiom Geological Survey Department of Cyprus (GSD) aiid A. Shiatl~as fiom Geoinvest Ltd. The time chart of the operations, the survey area ilames a ld the reference numbers of the PMR soundings are given in the following table :

Tab. 3.1 - Clzronogram of PMR survey, area names and refereizce of tlze PMR soundiizgs.

Totally 32 PMR soundings were performed on 4 distinct areas, focusiilg the survey inainly on the Xylophagou area. Figure 3.1 presents their respective locations in Cyprus. 111 1998, duriilg the whole survey, only 80-in-side square loops were used for the soundings.

Paph

II;

Finishing date 10/06/98 16/06/98 17/06/98 15/06/98 18/06/98

Beginning date 10/06/98 16/06/98 17/06/98 11/06/98 18/06/98

No 1 2 3 4

Fig. 3.1 -Location of tlze PMR test sitesperfornzed in Cyprus in 1998.


PMR soundings 2 1 46

47,48 22 to 45 49 to 51

Area name Pliinikas

Aradbippou Menoyia

Xylophagliou =

lntegrafed geophysical approach for management and exploration of groundwater resources

3.2. RESULTS

3.2.1. The Xylophaghou area

Location of the studied area in the Xylophagou is presented on the figure 3.2. 28 soundings were performed along three N-S parallel profiles. Length of these profiles are about 3 km- long and spacing behveen them is about 200 m. Locations of these soundings, together with the locations of boreholes already available in the vicinity of the survey area are presented on figure 3.3. Exact coordinates of these soundings can also be found on table 3.2. Raw data and inversion results are attached in appendix 2.

PMR profiles during this survey cross over a known E-W trend fault zone sited on the northern part of the investigated area (figure 3.3). This fault separates 2 hydrogeological specific environments : the northern part is mainly characterized by fractured sandstones fulfilled with clay-type material, while on the southern part reef limestones are principaly encountered.

Fig. 3.2 - Location of the PMR test site in the Xylophagou area



Tnb. 3.2 - Coordinates of the PMR soundings in Cyprus.



Fig. 3.3 - PMR sounding and existing borehole locations in the Xylophagou area

As a rule, the quality of the PMR data measured over this area is excellent : signal to noise ratio higher than 50 is currently observed on almost al1 soundings.

Maps of the spatial distributions of the measured PMR decay time values and average amplitudes are presented on figure 3.4. From South to North of the survey, more than five folds variations of these two parameters are observed. The southern area of the fault which corresponds to reef limestones is characterized by longer decay times and higher amplitudes than those measured on the northern part. So, without any processing, detection of the fault is clearly emphasized from these data.

Considering a cross-plot of the PMR average amplitudes versus decay times, 3 main separated groups are clearly determined (figure 3.4) :

group A : for this group, decay times range from 200 ms up to 300 ms and average amplitudes Vary from 250 to 350 nV. PMR soundings which belong to this group are located on the southern part of the fault, i.e. on the reef limestones area.

Rappon BRGM R 40368

Integfated geophysical approach for management and exploration of groundwater resources

group B : decay times are lower than in the previous group and range from 50 ms up to 150 ms, and average PMR amplitudes never exceed 200 nV. Corresponding PMR soundings are located on the fractured sandstone area on the northem part of the fault

group C includes only sounding Cy-23. Measured decay time of this sounding is identical to group A decay times, but with an average amplitude more or less identical to those of group B. Origin of this anomaly is at present not known but will be investigated in the next phase of the project.

According to their respective groups, PMR soundings locations are also plotted on figure 3.5. From this plot, it can be emphasized that the already known fault seems to be located about 200 m southward of its actual location. This fault crosses the western PMR limit of the survey between soundings Cy-44 and Cy-45, and exits the survey on the easd between soundings Cy-41 and Cy-40.

These results clearly demonstrate the capability of the PMR method to discriminate between two different hydrogeological environments.

Fig. 3.4 - Spatial distributions of the measured PMR decay time values (lefi) and average amplitudes (right).



a 0 -, -

400 -

D m 3 NO - .- - 4

4 100

B

O

100 200 h ç . y Tlmes (mr) -

Fig. 3.5 - Cross-plot of the average PMR amplitudes vs decay times (above) and PMR soundings represented according to their respective groups (bottom).

According to these results directly deduced from the raw data, and in order to determined the water content and decay time distributions versus depths, measured data were processed (see appendix 2). It must be pointed out that al1 the inversion results presented in this appendix do not take into acwunt the resistivity distributions deduced from TDEM soundings performed by IPRG. This work and 3D visualization of al1 the results will be undertaken during the next phase of the project. In this section, we will only focus on the results obtained on 3 specific profiles (figure 3.6), i.e. :



distance (ml 403 3M -200 -1W O lm 2m xa 4m

W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60 O 2040

M

40

- 30

E 2a c 0 10 - Y 0 -

-10

-20

JO

4

Fis 3.7 - Water content distributions of PMR soundings Iocated on profile 1.

In addition, in the next two figures (3.8 and 3.9), PMR inversion results compared with borehole data available in the vicinity of these soundings are presented (see also figure 3.3). A great discrepancy between borehole and PMR data can be observed. No water is detected by the borehole logs in the first 30 m. Moreover, while boreholes indicate a presence of water at a depth of 50-60 m, the PMR logs clearly indicate that a quite significant amount of water is located at about 10 m over this depth range. However, the depths of water detected by the boreholes seem to correspond to the depths indicated by PMR where water content and decay time variations are clearly observed within the deeper aquifer.

As PMR data are very consistent and of a very good quality, some physical explanation should be found for this phenomenon. Observed results may be explained by very low magnetization of the limestone. In this case the decay time of the PMR signal fiom the bounded water might be as long as the decay time from the free water. Therefore the PMR measures not only the free water as in typical case, but the total water (bounded water + free water). To verifi this hypothesis, samples of the limestone will be taken for laboratory examination and additional field study in Cypms is foreseen to be carried out in 1999.

m e r content (%) decay time (ms) 0.0 20.0 40.0 1 10 100 '1000 1

l ... ...

I Fig. 3.8 - Cornparison between GR33 borehole log and Cy-43 PMR log.



water content (%) decay time (ms) 0.0 200 40.0 W.0 1 10 1W 1W

Fig. 3.9 - Cornparison between 61/44 borehole log and Cy-32 PMR log.

On profile 2 (figure 3.10) located in the fractured sandstone area on the northem part of the fault, one main water layer is determined at about 20 m depth. Water contents which characterize this aquifer range from 10 to 30 % and decay times do not exceed 100 ms.

distance (m) 403 -3W -2W -lW O 103 200 300 400

W l . . . . l . . . . i . ~ . . l . ~ , . l . . . . i . m . . i . . . . i . . . . l

40 O 20 40 O 20 40 O 20 40

30

20

10 - E O C .O -10 .- a a, a0 -

-30

4 0

-50

4 0

Fig. 3.10 - Water content distributions of PMR soundings located on profile 2.

In the same hydrogeological context as profile 2 and in addition with the PMR inversion results of sounding Cy-38, the lithological log of borehole 74/51 located about 200m eastward of this sounding is presented on figure 3.11. Relatively good agreement can be observed between the water level depths given either by the borehole or by the inversion of the PMR data. The small discrepancy (about 5 m) can be easily explained by various reasons :

Rapport BRGM R 40368 41

lntegmted geophysical approach for management and exploration of groundwater resources

date of the measurements of the water level in the borehole (1951), exploitation of this borehole çince this date, lateral variation as the borehole and the PMR sounding are not located at the same site, resistivity distribution not taken into account in the inversion of the PMR data.

watel content 1%) desay tlme (ms)

Fig. 3.11 - Comparison between 74/51 borehole log and Cy - 38 PMR log.

Still on the sandstone area, figure 3.12 presents an another cornparison between Cy-30 PMR sounding results and borehole n0115/83 log. This borehole is located 300 m apari from the PMR sounding. The depth of the main water layer detected at about 28 m by PMR fits quite well with the aquifer located in the fractured sandstones. However, some water, which is not confirmed by borehole data, is also detected by PMR (water content of about 4 %) at depths ranging between 12 and 20 m in limestones.

boiehole 115183 NUMIS : cy-30

watw cnntmt (5) decay time (ms) 0.0 10.0 20.0 1 10 100 100

Fig. 3.12 - Comparison between 115/83 borehole log and Cy-30 PMR log.



This lead to the conclusion that on the northem part of the fault, where subsurface is essentially composed of fractured sandstones, aquifers are quite well resolved by PMR.

Water content (figure 3.13) and decay time (figure 3.14) distributions deduced from PMR soundings located along profile 3 summarize the previons results discussed earlier. The fault which separates reef limestones area on the South from the fractured sandstones area on the North is clearly detected by PMR (between soundings 26 and 37).

On the reef limestones area, two zones can be outlined :

a superficial zone (fiom O down to a depth of about 30 m), where various water layers are determined by al1 PMR soundings. Water contents of these layers can reach 15 % and decay times are rather constant (- 100 ms).

A main deeper zone, also determined by al1 PMR soundiigs, with water contents of at least about 30%. On al1 soundings, variations in both the water contents and the decay times are observed about 10 m below the top of this zone. Upper part of the main zone is characterized by water contents at least 5% lower than for the deeper part, and decay times are much more longer (over 200 ms instead of around 200 ms on the deeper part). A valuable physical explaination of this result is at present not known and will be adressed for the next phase of the project.

On the sandstone area, only one water zone is determined by PMR, characterized by water contents of about 15% and decay times lower than 100 ms.

distance (rn) -2600 -2400 -2200 -2000 -1800 -1M10 -1400 -1200 -IWO -800 M10 4 0 -200 O 200 400

N I . . . . I . . . . I , . . . I . ~ ~ ~ I ~ L

Cy-49 Cy-27 Cy-37Cy-26 Cy-29 Cy-25 Cy-24 CL23 C W Cy-3

50 40 30 20 10 - O

E - -10

g -20 .- -30

$ -40 - m -50

-60 -70 -80 -90 Fault zone

-100

Fig. 3.13 - Water content distributions of PMR soundings Iocated on profile 3.



distance (m) -2600 -2400 -2200 -2000 -1800 -1600 -1400 -1200 -lWO -800 6W -4W -200 O 200 400

N ~ , , I , , , , I , , , , I , . < . I , , , . , . , . . , . . , . l ~ , , , , I , , . > , , . . . . , . . . , , . . , . , ,,-

C ~ 4 9 Cy-27 Cy-37 Cy-26 C L ~ Cy-25 Cy-24 Cy-23 Cy-22 Cy-34

50 40 30 20 10 - O

E -10 5 -20 .- :, -30 2 4 0 - <u -50

6 0 -70 6 0 ------ -90 Fault zone

-100

Fig. 3.14 - Decay time distributions of PMR soundiugs located on profile 3.

Rapporf BRGM R 40368


Conclusion

Within the framework of the EEC-INCO project N018CT960122 untitled "A new integrated geophysical approach for the rational management and exploration of groundwater resources", two Proton Magnetic Resonance (PMR) surveys were carried out by BRGM in 1998. Totally 62 PMR soundings were fulfilled. For this survey NUMIS PMR equipment fabricated by IRIS INSTRUMENTS was used. PMR soundings were accompanied also by TDEM measurements provided by IPRG.

30 proton magnetic resonance (PMR) soundings were performed in Israel. 7 of them were carried out in Nitzanim area and 23 others in Dead Sea area. It was shown that the combination of PMR and TDEM may increase reliability of field data interpretation, especially in areas with salty water intrusions.

Thus, it was experimentally proved that the PMR can be easily combined with the TDEM and some practically inevitable variations in equipment configuration do not affect much on the PMR results.

32 PMR soundings were performed in Cypms. 28 of them were carried out in Xylophagou area along three parallel profiles which cross over a known fault zone. This fault zone separates reef limestone and fractured sandstone areas. More than five folds variation in both the water content and the decay time were observed. It leaves no doubts about correct detection of the fault position which is also confirmed by boreholes. 2D maps and 3D images allowed us to visualize the fault location. Main aquifer in this area was reasonably good resolved in northem part of the profile where the subsurface is composed essentially of fractured sandstone fulfilled with clay-type material. However, in southem part of the profile where aquifers are composed of reef limestone, a great discrepancy between boreholes and PMR data was revealed. While boreholes indicate presence of water at a depth of 40-50m, the PMR logs clearly indicate that a quite significant amount of water is located at 5-10m al1 over the limestone area. As PMR data are very consistent and of a very good quality, some physical explanation should be found for this phenomenon. Observed results could be explained for example by very low magnetization of the limestone. In this case the decay time of the PMR signal from the bounded water might be as long as the decay time from the free water. Therefore the PMR measures not only the free water as in typical case, but the total water (bounded water + free water). To verify this hypothesis, limestone samples are taken for laboratory examination and additional field study in Cyprus is foreseen to be carried out in 1999.



References

Baltassat J.M., Legchenko A.V. (1997) - Caractérisation des aquifères des sables du Perche et de la craie par sondages de résonance magnétique protonique à la périphérie de la ville de Nogent-le-Rotrou (Eure et Loir), rapport BRGM n02495, juillet 1997, 43p.

Beauce A., Bernard J., Legchenko AV., and Valla P. (1996) - Une nouvelle méthode géophysique pour les études hydrogeologiques: l'application de la résonance magnétique nucléaire: Hydrogéologie, vol. 1, pp. 71-77.

Gev I., Goldman M., Rabinovich B., Rabinovich M., Issar A. (1996) - Detection of the level in fractured phreatic aquifers using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) geophysical measurements: J.Appl.Geophys., vol. 34, pp. 277-282.

Goldman M., Rabinovich B., Rabinovich M., Gilad D., Gev I., and Schirov M. (1994) - Application of integrated NMR-TDEM method in ground water exploration in Israel: J.Appl.Geophys., vol. 31, pp. 27-52.

Goldman, M., Legchenko, A., V., Beauce, A., Valla, P., Fleisher, E., and Ezersky, M. (1997) - Joint inversion of the PMR and TDEM methods in groundwater exploration, Abstracts of the International Symposium on Geology and Environment, Sept. 1-5 , Istanbul, Turquie, p. 30.

Guillen, A., Legchenko, A. V. (1997) - Inverse problem of Magnetic Resonance Measurements applied to Water Resource Characterization, Expanded Abstracts, SEG'97, Dallas (USA), November 2-7, 1997, Vol 1, pp. 446-449.

Guillen, A., Legchenko, A. V. (1998) - Inversion of 1D NMR data by the Monte-Carlo Method, Proceedings, NMR Imaging of Reservoir Attributes, SEG Summer research Workshop, August 9-12, 1998, Park City, Utha, USA.

Kramvis S. (1987) - Application of electrical resistivity in groundwater exploration in Cyprus; Phd Thesis, University of Leicester.

Legchenko A.V., Semenov A.G., and Shirov M.D. (1990) (in Russian). A device for measurement of subsurface water saturated layers parameters: USSR Patent 15405 15.

Legchenko A.V., Shushakov O.A., Perrin J., and Portselan A.A. (1995) - Noninvasive NMR study of subsurface aquifers in France: Abstracts of The International Exposition and SEG 65th Annual Meeting, October 9-12, 1995, Houston, USA, pp.365-367.

Legchenko A.V., Beauce A., Guillen A., Valla P. and Bernard J. (1996) - Capability of the NMR applied to aquifers investigation from the surface, Proceedings of the EEGS 2nd Meeting, September 2-5, Nantes, France, pp. 70-73.



Legchenko A.V. (1996) - Some aspects of the performance of the Surface NMR Method: Expanded Abstracts with Autors' Biographies of SEG 66th Annual Meeting, November 10- 15, Denver, USA, pp.936-939.

Legchenko A.V. (1996) - A Practical Accuracy of the Surface NMR Measurements: Extended Abstracts of EAGE 58th Conference and Technicai Exhibition, June 3-7, 1996, Amsterdam, 1, M025.

Legchenko, A. V., Baltassat, J. M., Beauce, A., and Chigot, D. (1997) -Application of proton magnetic resonance for detection of fractured chaik aquifers from the surface, Proceedings of the 3rd Meeting on Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Aarhus (Denmark), 8-1 1 sept. 1997,pp. 115-118.

Legchenko, A. V., Baltassat, J. M., and Beauce, A. (1997) - A new integrated geophysical approach for the rational management and exploration of groundwater resources. 1st Annual report of the INCO-Project CT960122. Rapport BRGM No R39732, octobre 1997, 53 p.

Legchenko, A. V., Beauce, A., Guillen, A., Valla, P., and Bernard, J. (1997) - Natural variations in the magnetic resonance signal used in PMR groundwater prospecting from the surface, European Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Vol. 2, pp. 173- 190.

Legchenko, A., and Goldman, M. (1998) - A combined use of the NMR and TDEM methods for evaluating the amount of fresh ground water in coastal aquifers of Israel, Proceedings, NMR Imaging of Resewoir Attributes, SEG Summer research Workshop, August 9-12, 1998, Park City, Utha, USA.

Legchenko, A.V., and Shushakov, O.A., (1998) - Inversion of surface NMR data, Geophysics, Vol. 63, nol, pp. 75-84.

Legchenko, A. V., and Valla, P. (1998) - Processing of proton magnetic resonance signals using non-linear fitting Jour. Appl. Geophys., vol. 39, pp. 77-83.

Legchenko, A.V., Baltassat, J.M., Beauce, A., Makki, M.A., and Al-Gaydi, B.A. (1998) - Application of the surface proton magnetic resonance method for the detection of fractured granite aquifers: Proceedings of the IV Meeting of the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society (European Section), September 14-17, 1998, Barcelona (Spain), pp. 163-166.

Lieblich D.A., Legchenko A.V., Haeni F.P., and Portselan A. (1994) - Surface nuclear magnetic resonance expenments to detect subsurface water at Haddam Meadows, Connecticut: Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, March 27-31, 1994, Boston, Massachusetts, vol. 2, pp. 717-736.

Schirov M., Legchenko A.V., and Creer G. (1991) - New direct non-invasive ground water detection technology for Australia: Expl.Geophys., vol. 22, pp. 333-338.



Semenov A.G. (1987) - NMR Hydroscope for water prospecting: Proceedings of the seminar on Geotomography: Indian Geophysical Union, Hyderabad, pp. 66-67.

Semenov A.G., Schirov M.D. and Legchenko A.V. (1987) - On the technology of subterranean water exploration founded on application of nuclear magnetic resonance tomograph Hydroscope: IXth Ampere summer school, Abstracts, Novosibirsk, September 20-26, 1987, p. 214.

Semenov A.G., Burshtein A.I., Pusep A.Yu., and Schirov M.D. (1988) (in Russian) - A device for measurement of underground minera1 parameters: USSR Patent 1079063.

Semenov A. G., Schuov M. D., Legchenko AV., Burshtein A. I., Pusep A. Yu. (1989) - Device for measuring the parameter of underground minera1 deposit: G.B. Patent 2198540B.

Shushakov O.A. and Legchenko A.V. (1994a) - Calculation of proton magnetic resonance signal of underground water considering medium electric conductivity: Geol. and Geophysics, 1994, vol. 35, N03, pp. 130-136. (in Russian).

Shushakov O.A. and Legchenko A.V. (1994b) - Ground water proton magnetic resonance in the horizontally stratified media of different electrical conductivity: Geol. and Geophysics, vol. 35, No 10, pp. 161-166. (in Russian).

Shushakov O.A. (1996) - Groundwater NMR in conductive water: Geophysics, vol. 61, No 4, pp. 998-1006.

Trushkin D.V., Shushakov O.A., and Legchenko A.V. (1994) - The potential of a noise- reducing antenna for surface NMR ground water surveys in the earth's magnetic field: Geophys.Prosp., vol. 42, pp. 855-862.

Trushkin D.V., Shushakov O.A., and Legchenko A.V. (1995) - Surface NMR applied to an electroconductive medium: Geophys.Prosp., vol. 43, pp. 623-633.

Varian R.H. (1962) - Ground liquid prospecting method and apparatus: US Patent 3019383.



List of figures

Figure 1.1. Maximum depth of water detection in electrically conductive half-space 1 1 Figure 1.2. Synthetic signals from a 10-m-thick water-saturated layer in the

half-space of different electrical conductivity ........................................ 12 Figure 1.3. Inversion of synthetic data using erroneous 500 ohm-m half-space, and

correct 3 ohm-m half-space ...................................................................... 12 Figure 1.4. Inversion of real data using erroneous 500 ohm-m half-space, and correct

value of the resistivity deduced from TDEM data .................................... 13 Figure 1.5. Schema of the NUMIS instrument ............................................................. 14

................................................................ Figure 1.6. Photo of the NUMIS equipment 14 ............................................. Figure 2.1 . Antennas employed for PMR measurements 15

........................................................... Figure 2.2. Location of PMR test sites in Israel 15 Figure 2.3. Location map of the PMR soundings performed in the Nitzanim area ..... 17 Figure 2.4. PMR equpment position along profile 1 in the Nitzanim area .................. 18 Figure 2.5 PMR data (water content vs depth) dong profile 1 in the Nitzanim area ... 19 Figure 2.6. PMR (water content vs depth) data and TDEM results along profile 2

in the Nitzanim area .................................................................................. 19 Figure 2.7. Location map of the PMR soundings performed in the Dead Sea area

............................................................................... (boreholes T2 and T4) 21 Figure 2.8. PMR inversion results at borehole T2 .................................................... 22 Figure 2.9. PMR inversion results at borehole T4 ....................................................... 22 Figure 2.10. Location map of the PMR soundings performed in the Dead Sea area

(zone 1) .................................................................................................... 23 Figure 2.1 1 . PMR profile 4 (water content versus depth) perfonned in the

............................................................................ Dead Sea area (zone 1) 24 Figure 2.12. Location map of the PMR soundings performed in the

........................................................................ Dead Sea area (Ein Gedi) 25 Figure 2.13. PMR profile 1 (water content versus depth) perfonned in the

........................................................................ Dead Sea area (Ein Gedi) 26 Figure 2.14. PMR profile 2 (water content versus depth) performed in the

........................................................................ Dead Sea area (Ein Gedi) 26 Figure 2.15. Location map of the PMR soundings performed in the

Dead Sea area (zone 2) ............................................................................ 27 Figure 2.16. PMR profile 3 (the water content versus depth) performed in the

............................................................................ Dead Sea area (zone 2) 28 .......................................................... Figure 2.17. Influence of the wire cross-section 29

Figure 2.18. Pulse duration influence on PMR signal measured with the same loop .. 29 Figure 2.19. Influence of the pulse duration on PMR data inversion .......................... 30 Figure 2.20. Influence of the wire length on the PMR signal measured with the same

.......................................................................................... pulse duration 30 ............................... Figure 2.21. Influence of the wire length on PMR data inversion 31

.............................................................. Figure 2.22. Optimal and non-optimal pulses 31 Figure 2.23. Influence of the pulse shape on PMR signal measured with the same

............................................................ pulse duration and the same loop 31



Figure 2.24. PMR sounding dso-l6A (with 80 m square antenna) ............................. 32 Figure 2.25. PMR sounding dso-l6B (with 120 m square antenna) ........................... 32 Figure 3.1. Location of the PMR test sites performed in Cyprus in 1998 ................... 33 Figure 3.2. Location of the PMR test site in Xylophagou area .................................... 34 Figure 3.3. PMR sounding and existing borehole locations in the Xylophagou area .. 36 Figure 3.4. Spatial distributions of the measured PMR decay time values and

average amplitudes .................................................................................... 37 Figure 3.5. Cross-plot of the average PMR amplitudes vs decay times and PMR

soundings represented according to their group appartenance .................. 38 Figure 3.6. PMR survey and location of the 3 profiles ............................................... 39 Figure 3.7. Water content distributions of PMR soundings located on profile 1 ......... 40 Figure 3.8. Comparison between GR33 borehole log and Cy-43 PMR log ................ 40 Figure 3.9. Comparison between 61/44 borehole log and C y 3 2 PMR log ................ 41 Figure 3.10. Water content distributions of PMR soundings located on profile 2 ....... 41 Figure 3.1 1 . Comparison between 74/51 borehole log and Cy-38 PMR log .............. 42 Figure 3.12. Comparison between 115183 borehole log and Cy-30 PMR log ............ 42 Figure 3.13. Water content distributions of PMR soundings located on profile 3 ....... 43 Figure 3.14. Decay time distributions of PMR soundings located on profile 3 ........... 44



List of tables

Table 2.1. Chronogram of PMR survey in Israel. area names and reference numbers of the soundings ......................................................................................... 16

................................. Table 2.2. Coordinates of the PMR soundings in Dead sea area 20 Table 3.1. Chronogram of PMR survey in Cyprus, area names and reference numbers

of the soundings ....................................................................................... 33 Table 3.2. Coordinates of the PMR soundings in Cyprus ............................................ 35



List of appendices

Appendix 1 - PMR survey in Israel : data and interpretations

Appendix 2 - PMR survey in Cyprus : sounding locations, data and interpretations



Appendix 1

(F'MR results, Israel 1998)



Test site: Ein Gedi, DSAl File: i dsa la Date: 30.03.98 Time: 09.15 SignallNoise = 5.14 Stacking number = 144 Processing window =191.8 ms l ime constant of filtering = 15 ms TxiRx loop: square 80 m

- signal NUMlS experimental data - - - exp. fit

- - zero

3600

3200

2800

2400

5 8 - a, 2000 -0 3 - .- - E

1600

1200

800

400

O

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)


lntegrafed geophysical approach for management and exploration of groundwafer resources

Testsite: Ein Gedi, DSA1 Fila: i-dsala Date: 30.03.98 Time: 09.15 SignsliNoise = 5.16 Stasking number= 144 Processing window =191.8 m r Time constant of filtaring = 15 rns TxIRx loop: square 80 m

NUMlS experimental data -- - - - pulsefrequeiçy

100 1W pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

100 l& lm lb pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)


lnfegrafed geophysical approach for management and exploration of groundwafer resources

Test site: Ein Gedi, DSA1 File: i-dsala Date: 30.03.98 Time: 09.15 SignallNoise = 5.14 Stacking number = 144 Processing window=191.8 ms Time constant of filtering = 15 ms TxlRx loop: square 80 m

NUMIS inversion results

103 lm lm 103 lm 10x0 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

resistivity (ohm-m water content (%) decay time (ms)

1 10 2

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 =

paramisof regulahtion = 10M) - fitting ermr (%) = 4.8

TDEM data

- - - - - - paramztw of regulanzation =MO fitting error (%) =4.2



Test site: Ein Gedi, DSA2 File: idsa2 Date: 30.03.98 Trne: 14.55 SignallNoise = 2.31 Stacking number = 100 Proceçsing window =191.8 ms Tirne constant of filtering = 15 rns TxRx loop: eight square40 rn

- signal NUMlS experirnental data - - - exp. fit

1800

1500

1200

9 K - a,

900 + .- - E- m

600

300

O

O 40 80 120 160 200 tirne (rns)

Rappofi BRGM R 40368


Test site: Ein Gedi. DSA2 File: o s a 2 Date: 30.03.98 Time: 14.55 SignallNoise = 2.31 Stacking nurnber= 100 Processing window =191.8 ms Time constant of tifiltering = 15 ms TxBix loop: eight square 40 rn

1W 1W pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

1W 10033 pulse parameter (A-ms)

180 160 140 120 1W 80 60 40 20 O

-M 4 Ml -80 -lW -la -140 -160 -180

100 1003 IWO pulse parameter (A-ms)



Test site: Ein Gedi, OSA2 File: i-dsa2 Date: 30.03.98 Time: 14.55 SignailNoise = 2.31 Stacking nurnber= 100 Processing window=191.8 ms Time constant of filtering = 15 rns TxlRx loop: eight square 40 rn

NUMlS inversion results

* measure6 signal - - - - rswnstruded simals

100 pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) 0.0 4.0 8.0 120

X averagesignal

60 average noise

r40 - al

5 .- .- - g 20 m

O 100 10303 pulse parameter (A-m)

resistivity (ohm-m decay time (ms)

1 10 2

100 Iwo z s - -

paramXe- of reguiarizaiion =203 fitting wror (%)=a.+

TDEM data - - - - - - paramte- of regulanzaiion =MO

ritting wror (%) = 8.7



Test site: B n Gedi, DSA3 File: i-dsa3 Date: 31.03.98 Time: 15.35 SignalINoise = 1.24 Stacking nurnbw = 100 Proceçsing window =191.8 rns Tirneconstant of filtering = 15 ms T x l k loop: eight square4 rn

- signal NUMIS experirnental data - - - exp. fit - - zero

2100

1800

1500

9 1200 c - al U 3 C .- - n k 900

600

300

O

O 40 80 120 160 200 tirne (ms)



Testsite: Ein Gedi, DSA3 File: @sa3 Date: 31.03.98 Time: 15.35 SignallNoise = 1.24 Stacking number = 100 Processing window=l91.8 rnr Time constant of filtering = 15 ms TxlRx IOOP: eight square 40 m

NUMIS experirnental data - - - - - DuISefTe(lLJBISy

pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)




Test site: Ein Gedi, DSA3 File: i-dsa3 Date: 31.03.98 Time: 15.35 SignailNoise = 1.24 Stacking number= 100 Procesçing window=191.8 ms Time constant of filtering = 15 ms TxlRx loop: eight square 40 m


* mEBSUred Signal X avqesiqnal - - - - reainstruded signais averagenolse

z 2 0 - z - 20 (U (U u u a - 5 .- - .- - - E l 0 g I O m m

O O Ica 163 pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) 0.0 4.0 8.0

0 " " ' ~ " " i

5


resistivity (ohm-rn

parameter of regularization = MO fitting wror (%) = 10.9 - - - - paraMer of reguiarization = 300 fitting e-ror (%)= 11.9

TDEM data



Test site: Ein Gedi, DSA4 File: i-dsa4a Date: 01.04.98 Time: 11.15 SignallNoise = 1.47 Stacking number = 120 Processing window-198.2 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms Tx/Rx loop: eight square 40 m

- signal NUMlS experirnental data - - - exp. fit - - zero

900

800

700

600

z 500 - al v a - .- - P E 400 m

300

200

1 O0

O

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test site: Ein Gedi, DSA4 File: iLdsa4a Date: 01.04.98 Time: H.15 SignallNoise = 1.47 Sacking number= 120 Pmsessing window =198.2 ms Time constant offiltering = 10 ms TXlRx loop: eight square40 m

NUMlS experimental data - - - - - pulrefrequency

lcao lowo 1W pulse paameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

1W lb 1W 1 b pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)



Test site: Ein M i , ES44 File: i-dsa4a Date: 01.04.98 Tme: 11.15 SignalINoise = 1.47 Stacking number = 120 Processing window =198.2 m l ime constant of filtering = 10 ms T x i k loop: eight square40 m


100 1000 10000 pulse parameter (A-ms)

X average signal average noise

15

- z IO a> U 3 + .- - E m

O 100 lm 1000 pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) decay time (ms) 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 1 10 100 1MW) 10000

parameter of regularization = 20000 fitting error (%) = 11.16

- - - - - - parameter of regularization = 400 fitting error (%) = 12.7



Test site: Ein Gedi, DSA5 File: i-dsa5 Date: 01.04.98 Time: 14.55 SignallNoise = 1.02 Stacking number = 36 Processing window =198.2 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TxlRx loop: eight square 40 m

- signal NUMIS experimental data - - - exp. fit - - zero

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Testsite: Ein Gedi. DSAS File: i-dsa5 Date: 01.04.98 lime: 14.55 SinaUNoise = 1.02 Stosking number = 36 processing window =198.2 rns l ime constant of filtering = 10 ms TxIRx loop: eight souare40 m

NUMlS experimental data

I W lww pulse parameter (A-ms)

1030

- Ë - O

E 1W - a rn Y a, m

10 1W 1030

pulse parameter (A-ms)

1W pulse parameter (A-ms)




Test site: En Gedi, DSA5 File: i-dsa5 Date: 01.04.98 Tme: 14.55 SignallNoise = 1.02 Stacking number = 36 Processing window =198.2 ms Tirneconstant of filtering = 10 ms TxIRx loop: eight square40 rn



X averagesignal average noise

20

9 s - O 2 I O - .- - E m

O 100 lm 1000 pulse parameter (A-ms)



- - - - m m parameter of regularization = 200 fitting error (%) = 24.0



Test site: En Wi, DSA6 File: i-dsa6 Date: 01.04.98 lime: 16.50 SignallNoise = 2.30 Sacking nurnber = 36 Processing window =191.8 rns Tirne constant of filtering = 15 rns T m loop: square 80 rn

- signal NUMIS experimental data - - - exp. fit

- - zero 1000

900

800

700

600 9 s - al 3 500 - .- - a E m

400

300

200

1 O0

O

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test site: Ein Gedi, DSA6 File: i-dsa6 Date: 01.04.98 Time: 16.50 SignallNoise = 2.30 Stacking number = 36 Processing window=l91.8 ms Time constant of filtering = 15 rns T ~ R x loop: square 80 rn J

1W 1033 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

lb 103 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)


Integfated geophysical approach for management and exploration of groundwater resources

Test site: Ein Gedi, DSAG File: i-dsa6 Date: 01.04.98 Tirne: 16.50 SignalINoise = 2.30 Stacking number = 36 Processing window =191.8 ms Tirneconstant of filtering = 15 ms T m loop: square 80 rn


* measured signal - 80

- - - remnstructed signals

9 5

240 .r - e m

O 100 1000 10000 100 1000 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)


parameier of regularization = 3000 fitting error (%) = 14.7

- - - - - - parameier of regularization = 2000 fiiting error (%) = 15.7



Test site: Ein Gedi, DSVl File: i-dsvl Date: 31 03.98 T m 08.40 SignallNoise = 1.41 Stacking number = 100 Proceçsing window =191.8 ms Tme constant of filtering = 15 rns TxRx loop: eight square40 m


- - zero 3200

2800

2400

2000

F f: - a, 7 1600 = - E m

1200

800

400

O

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test site: Ein Gedi, DSV1 File: i-dsvl Date: 31.03.98 Time: 08.40 SignaUNoise = 1.41 Stasking number= 100 Processing window=191.8 mr Time constant of filtering = 15 rns TxlRx loop: eightsquare40 m

NUMlS experimental data - - - - - Dulsefrequmw


IWO

- Ë - 0

E 1W - 2 u m v

10 1W 1033


. . 1895.0

1890.0

1885.0

1880.0

1875.0

1870.0 1W lm 1033


180 160 140 120 1W 80 60 40 23

O -20 40 al -80

-lW -123 -140 -160 -180

100 lm 1033 pulse parameter (A-ms)



Test site: Ein Gedi, DSVl File: i-dsvl Date: 31.03.98 Time: 08.40 SignalINoise = 1.41 Stacking nurnber = 100 Processing window =191.8 rns Timeconstant of filtering = 15 ms TxlFbc loop: eight square40 m

-


* rneasured signal - - - - reconstructed signais



1000 1000 pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) decay time (ms) 0.0 10.0 20.0 1 1 O 100 1000


m m - m - - parameter of regularization = 200 fitting error (%) = 35.7



SignalINoise = 6.61 Stacking number = 26 Processing window =198.6 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms

- signal

NUMlS experimental data - - - exp. fit - - zero

O 40 80 1 20 160 20 time (ms)



Test site: Dead Sea, 05233 File: iLdrz33 Date: 02.04.98 Time: 11.10 SignaVNoise = 6.61 Stacking ~iumber= 26 Processin9 window=198.6 rns Time constant of filtering = 10 rns TxIRx IOOP: Square 120 rn

NUMlS experimental data - - - - - WIsefrRIUenN


IWO

- E - E IW .- - 2 0 O v

10 1W IWO


180 1W 140 120 1W 80 60 40 20 O

-20 4 €0 -80 -lW -lM -140 -1 W -180

1W IWO pulse parameter (A-ms)



Test site: Dead Sea, DSW3 File: i-dsr33 Date: 02.04.98 Time: 71.10 SignallNoise = 6.61 Stacking number = 26 Processing window=198.6 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TxlRx laop: square 120 m



- - - remnstrucledsignals

- E lm m -O 3 u .- - F m m

O 103 pulse parameter (A-ms)

ICO 10x0 pulse parameter (A-ms)

resistivity (ohmrn water content (%) decay time (ms)

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 1 10 I C Q Tc00 10x0 2 0 , , 2 2

p a r a m o f regularization = SWO - Btting wror (%) =6.13

TDEM data - - - - - - parameter of regularization = 1202

Btting error (%) = 6.63



Date: 02.04.98 Tirne: 08.10 SignalMise = 8.22

- signal NUMlS experimental data

- - - exp. fit - - zero

3500

3000

2500

9 2000 c - 0 U -J + .- - a k 1500

- - - - 1000

- time (ms)



Date: 02.04.98 Time: 08.10 SignallNaise = 8.22 Stacking number = 26 Processing window ~198.6 ms Time sonstsnt of filtehg = 10 m s TxlRx loop: square 120 m



IWO

- E - m . IW - > rn 0

O D

10 1W IWO

puise parameter (A-ms)

1W lox, 1030 pulse parameter (A-ms)




Test site: Dead Sea, DSZ34 File: i-dsz34 Date: 02.04.98 Time: 08.10 SignallNoise = 8.22 Stacking number = 26 Processing window=198.6 ms Time constant of filtering= 10 ms TxlRx looo: souare 120 rn


* measured signai

103 1000 10x0 1W 1000 10x0 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) 0.0 4.0 8.0

decay time (ms) 1 10 103 lm

resistivitv (ohm-m

parameter of regularization = 5W fitting error (%)= 1.9

TMM data - - - - - - parametu of regularization =XQ

fitting wror (%) = 3.W



Test site: Dead Sea, Dç09 File: idso9 Date: 29.03.98 Tirne: 09.50 SignalINoise = 4.30 Stacking nurnber = 30 Processing window =198.0 ms Tirne constant of filtering = 10 rns TxIRx loop: square 80 m

- signal NUMIS experirnental data - - - exp. fit

- - zero 2400

2000

- - 1600

- - - - 9 K - al z 1200 + .- -

m - - - - - -

800 - - - - - -

400

O

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Date: 29.0398 Time: 09.50 SignailNdse = 4.30 Stacking number= 30 ProSe55in9 window =198.0 rnr Time constant of filtering = 10 rns TXlRX loop: square 80 rn


103 1W loco pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

1003

- E - 2 IW .- - 2i a '3

a n

10 1W IWO


180 160 140 120 1W 80 60 40 20 O

-20 -40 -60 -80 -lW -120 -140 -160 -180

1W 1003 1003 pulse parameter (A-ms)



Test site: Dead Sea, DS09 File: i-dsa9 Date: 29.03.98 Time: 09.50 SignallNoise = 4.30 Stacking number = 30 Processing window=198.0 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TxlRx loop: square 80 m



water content (%) 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0

100 law pulse parameter (A-ms)

decay time (rns) 1 10 1CO lm

parameter of reguiarizaüon = MO Stting error %) -6.3

TDEM data - - - - - - parameter ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ l a r i m t i o n =29176

Stting error (%) = 6.46



Test site: Dead Sea, DSOSa File: i-dso9a Date: 02.04.98 Tme: 15.25 SignalINoise = 9.46 Stacking nurnber = 26 Processing window =197.9 m rime constant of filtering = 10 rns T x l k loop: square 120 rn


- - zero 4000

3600

3200

2800

2400

2000

- -

1600 - - - - - -

1200

800

400

O

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test site: Dead sea. D S O B ~ File: iLdso9a Date: 02.04.98 ~ i m e : 15.25 SignaIlNoire = 9.46 Stacking number = 26 Procersing window=197.9 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TxIRx loop: Square 120 m

1W l& 1W l w o pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)



Test site: Dead Sea, DSO9a File: i-dso9a Date: 02.04.98 Time: 15.25 SignalNoise = 9.46 Stacking number = 26 Processing window=197.9 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TxlRx IOOD: sauare 120 m


IW pulse parameter (A-ms)

IW 1030 pulse parameter (A-rns)

resistivity (ohm-m water content (%) decay time (rns)

0.0 4.0 8.0 120 1 10 2 X

103 1033 z p - 0

parameter of regularization =2W - fiiting error (%) = 3.1

TDEM data - - - - - - paramter of regulaization =mX)

fiiiing error (%) = 3.4



Trne: 12.M) SignallNoise = 7.38 Stacking number = 36 Processing window =197.9 rns Tme constant of filtering = 10 ms

- signal

NUMIS experimental data - - - exp. fit - - zero

9 s - a, U 2 + .- - a E m

- -

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)

Rappott BRGM R 40368


Test site: Dead Sea, 05016 File: iLdso16 Date: 29.03.98 Time: 12.00 SignallNoise = 7.38 Stacking number- 36 processing window =197.9 m s Time constant of filtering = 10 m s TXIRX I W ~ : Square 80 m

NUMlS experimental data - - - - - pulsefrequency

pulse parameter (A-ms) 1W IWO


pulse parameter (A-ms) 100 IWO




Testsite: Dead Sea, DS016 File: i-dso16 Date: 29.03.98 Tirne: 12.00 SignallNoise = 7.38 Stacking nurnber = 36 Processing window=197.9 rns Time constant of filtering = 10 rns TxlRx loop: square 80 rn


* measurd signai X averagesignal - - - - r m s t r u d e d signais averagenoise 153 120

E l 0 3 - z - 83 m 0 v -a 3 2 .+ .- - = - E S m E40 m

O O 103 lm lm 103 lm lm pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-rns)

reçistivity (ohm-m decay time (ms) ; 2

1 I O 103 1030 IMXX) X 2 0 water content (%)

0.0 4. O 8.0 12.0 0 " ~ " i ~ " ~ I ' " ' I 5pk&+-- 1

10 4 wr ! 15 3 1 .,Pl

l T. ' 20 4

p a r m e - of regularization=îW fitting e-ror (%) =6.7,

TDEM data

- - - - - - paramete- of regularization = 1203 fiiiing wror (%) = 6.9

25 3 1 - 30 3 - - - - - L 2 - : 35 li 4 0 r - j


I

E 45 4 - ! I

E 55 l " 603

65 3 ! 70 1

75 4 I 83 4

i 85 3 90 + I 95 3

103 3 l


Test site: Drad Sea, DSO16a File: i-dsolûa Me: 29.03.98 Time: 13.00 SignallNoise = 5.29 Stacking nurnber = 36 Proceçsing window 497.9 ms Xrne constant of filtering = 10 ms Txlb loop: square 80 m


- - zero 2200

2000

1800

1600

1400

9 - - .5 1200 a, -0 IS

4-a .- - E IO00 '3

800

- - 600

- - 400

- -

200

O

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test Site: Dead Sea. DS016a File: iLdso16a Date: 29.03.98 Time: 13.00 SignallNoise = 5.29 Stiicking number= 36 Pmcesring window ~197.9 ms Time constantai filtering = I O rns TxiRx ioap: square 80 m

NUMlS experirnental data - - - -- pulsefrequmcy





Test site: Dead Sea, DS016a File: i-dsol6a Date: 29.03.98 Time: 13.00 SignallNoise = 5.29 Stacking number= 36 Processing window=197.9 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TxlRx bop: square 80 m 1


* measured signai - - - - rmnstructedsignais


10303 pulse parameter (Ams)

resistivity (ohm-rn water content (%) decay tirne (ms) X

O. O 4.0 8.0 12.0 1 10 103 1C00 1MXX) p z =

parametw of reguiarization = IW - fitiing error (%) = 8.36

TMM data - - - - - - paramis of regulanaiion = 8W fitiing error (%)= 8.6



Test site: Dead Sea, DSO16b File: i-dsol6b Date: 29.03.98 Tirne: 14.25 Signalmise = 8.80 Stacking nurnber = 36 Processing window =197.9 ms Tirne constant of filtering = 10 rns T m loop: square 120 rn


- - zero

- - - -

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Testsite: Dead Sea. DS016b File: iLdeo16b Date: 29.03.98 Time: 14.25 SignaIlNoire = 8.80 Stasking nurnber =36 Pmcessing window =197.9 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TxlRx loop: square 120 m

1W 1WW 100 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

IWO

- Ë - m E 100 - 2i

" m -0

10 Ica 1003

pulse parameter (A-ms) 1 W



lntegrated geophysical apbroach for management and exploration of groundwafer resources

Test site: Dead Sea, DS016b File: i-dso16b Date: 29.03.98 Time: 14.25 SignallNoise = 8.80 Stacking nurnber = 36 Processing window=197.9 ms Time constant of filtering= 10 rns TxlRx loop: square 120 m


la, 1900 pulse parameter (A-mç)

water content (%) 0.0 4.0 8.0 120

IWO lm pulse parameter (A-ms)

resistivity (ohm-m decay time (ms)

1 10 .z la, IWO z e - =

parameter of regulaization = 50 fitting error (%)=21 TDEM data

- - - - - - parameter of regularization = XO fitting wmr (%) =3.4



Test site: W Sea, DSOA File: i-dsoa Date: 07.04.98 Tme: 12.10 SignalMise = 11.4 Stacking number = 20 Processing window =198.0 rns l ime constant of filtering = 10 ms Txlm loop: square 120 m

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)

- signal NUMlS experimental data - - - exp. fit - - zero

4000 4


3800 4 - --

- - -

- - -

- - -

3600 {- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -- - - -


Test rite: Dead Ses, DSOA File: i-dsoa Date: 07.04.98 Time: 12.10 SignallNaise- 11.4 Stacking numbei= 20 Prosessing ~indow=198.0 mS Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TxIRx IOOP: Square 120 m




Teçt site: Dead Sea, DSOA File: idsoa Date: 07.04.98 Tme: 12.10 Signalmise = 11.4 Stacking number = 20 Processing window =198.0 ms Tme constant of filtering = 10 ms TxRx loop: square 120 rn


* measured signal X averagesignal - - - - reconstructed signals average noise 300 200

- z 200 F II -

al al U 3 0,100 7z + - .- -

100 m

E m

O O

100 lm 10000 100 1000 1000 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) decay time (ms) 0.0 4. O 8.0 12.0 1 1 O 100 1000

parameter of regularization = 100 fitiing error (%) = 2.63 - - - - - - parameter of regularization = 220 fitting error (%) = 2.7



Test site: Drad Sea, DSOB File: idsob Date: 07.04.98 'Tirne: 14.15 SignallNoise = 11.5 Stacking numbw = 26 Proceçsing window =197.9 ms 7ime constant of filtering = 10 ms T m loop: square 120 m


- - zero 5000

4800

4600

4400

4200

4000

3800

3600

3400

3200

3000

2800 - @ 2600 U 3 .% - 2400

E 2200 m - - - - - -

2000

1800

1600 - - - - - 1400

1200

1 O00

800

600

400

200

O

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Testrite: Dead Sea. D S 0 8 File: i-dsob Date: 07.04.98 Time: 14.15 SignallNoioe= 11.5 Stacking nurnber = 26 Pracersing window=l97.9 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TXlRx ioop: square 120 m

NUMlS experimental data -- -- - oulsefreauencv





Test site: Dead Sea, DSOB File: i-dsob Date: 07.04.98 lime: 14.15 SignalINoise = 11.5 Stacking number = 26 Processing window =197.9 ms Tirne constant of filtering = 10 ms Tx lk loop: square 120 m


X aveage signal average noise

300

- z 200 a, U 3 - .- - g 100 m

O 100 1000 10000 100 1000 1000 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0

decay time (ms) 1 10 100 1000 10000

parameter of regularization = 100 fitting error (%) = 2.25 - - - - - - parameter of regularization = 2500 fitting error (%) = 2.9



Test site: Dead Sea, DSOBA File: i-dsoba Date: 07.04.98 Tirne: 15.20 SignallNoise = 12.1 Stacking number = 26 Processing window =197.9 ms l ime constant of filtering = 10 ms TxlRx loop: square 120 m


- - zero

- -

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test site: Dead Sea, DSOBA File: i-dsoba Date: 07.04.98 Time: 15.20 SignallNoise = 12.1 Stasking number = 26 Processlng window =197.9 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms T ~ R x Ioop: square 120 m


IW liim 1 W l,, I& pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

1W liim 103 l& pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)


lntegrated geophysical approach for management and exploration o f groundwater resources

Test site: Dead Sea, DSOBA File: idsoba Date: 07.04.98 Time: 15.20 SignallNoise= 12.1 Stacking number = 26 Processing window =197.9 ms Tirne constant of filtering = 10 ms TxlRx loop: square 120 rn


* rneasured signal - 300

_ _ _ reconstructed signals

- z 200 m TI x - .- - 2 100 m

O 100 1000 pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%)

0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 O 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 - 60 :;

"0 ;; 85 90 95

100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150

100 1000 looo pulse parameter (A-ms)

parameter of regularization = 1M3 fitting error (%) =3.8

- - - - - - parameter of regularization = IWO fitting error (%) =4.7



Test site Dead Sea, Bi326 File: i-dsd26 Date: 05.04.98 Time: 10.40 SignalINoise = 1.87 Stacking nurnbw =40 Processing window =198.1 rns limeconstant of filtering = 10 ms TxlFbc loop: square 100 m


- - zero 2400

2200

2000

1800

1600

5- 1400 s V

a, 3 1200 -L .- - l?

1000

800

600

400

200

O

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Testsite: Dead Sea, DS026 File: i-drd26 Date. 05.0498 Time: 10.40 SignaIlNoire = I d7 Stacking numbei=do Processing window=198.1 ms Time constant offiltering s IO ma TxlRx loop: square 100 m

laa 1033 loow laa 1033 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (Ams)

1W 1033 loow laa 1033 lwa pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)


lnfegrated geophysical approach for management and exploration of groundwafer resources

Test site: Dead Sea, DSD26 File: i-dsd26 Date: 05.04.98 Time: 10.40 SignallNoise = 1.87 Stacking number= 40 Processing window=198.1 ms Time constant offiltering = 10 ms TxlRx loop: square 100 m


* m u r d signai - - - - reconstruded signals

103 laxi 1COM) laxi pulse parameter (A-m) pulse parameter (A-ms)

resistivity (ohm-m water content (%) decay time (ms)

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 1 10 ICO lm3 z z - - 2 2

parametw of regularization= 103 fitting error (%) = 7.86

TMM data - - - - - - parameter of regularization =WM

fining error (%) = 7.94


lntegrated geophysical approach ,for management and exploration of groundwater resources

Test site: Drad Sea, DSDî6B File: i-dsd26b Date: 05.04.98 Time: 12.20 SignalNise = 2.63 Stacking number = 50 Processing window =198.1 ms Xrne constant of filtering = 10 rns Txlm loop: square 100 rn


- -zero

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test site: Dead Sea, DSDZSB File: jdsd26b Date: 05.04.98 Time: 12.20 SignallNoise = 2.63 Stecking number = 50 Processing windaw=l$L1 m r Time constant of filtering = 10 ml T ~ R x loop: square 100 m



IWO

- E - a, E 100 - 2 O m n

10 1W IWO


180 160 140 1x1 1W 80 60 40 20 O

-M 4 -60 al -lW -lM -140 -1M) -180




Test site: Dead Sea, DSD26B File: jdsdZ6b Date: 05.04.98 Time: 12.20 SignallNoise = 2.63 Stacking number = 50 Processing window=198.1 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 rns TxIRx laap: square 100 m


* m u r e d signal

103 lcoo 10x0 103 lcoo pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-m)

water content (%) 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0

decay time (m) 1 10 103 IWO

O 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 €0 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

103 105 110 115 120

resistivity (ohmm

parameter of regularization = 2W - fitting error (%) = 8.13

TDEM data - - - - - - parameter of regularization =5Xl

fitting error (%) = 5.T



Teçt site: Dead Sea, DSPl File: i d s p l Date: 07.04.98 Tirne: 09.40 SignallNoise = 4.93 Stacking number = 50 Proceçsing window =2M).O m 7ime constant of filtering = 10 rns T a loop: eight square40 m


- - - - - -

- -

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Date: 07.04.98 Time: 09.40 SignallNoise = 4.93 stacking riurnber=50 Processin9 window =200.0 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TdRx loop: eight square 40 rn

NUMlS experimental data - - - - .. pulsefrquency

1W 1W 1003 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

IWO

- E - 0

. IW - a m " m P

10 1W IWO


180 1W 140 120 1W 80 €0 40 20 O

-20 4 €0 -80 -1 W -lM -140 -lW -180

103 IWO pulse parameter (A-ms)



Test site: Dead Sea. DSPI File: i-dspl Date: 07.04.98 Time: 09.40 SignallNoise = 4.93 Stacking number= 50 Processing window=Z00.0 rns Tirne constant of filtering = 10 rns TxlRx loop: eight square 40 m


* meauirodsigign* - 120

- - - reconstrudedsignals

- z 80 m u a ,- .- - E40 m

O lm 1 0 10x0 pulse parameter (A-ms)

X avwqsiqnal average nolse

z - $40 - .- - P

E,

O lm 1 0 lm pulse parameter (A-ms)

resistivity (ohm-rn water content (%) decay time (ms)

0.0 4.0 8.0 120 1 10 lm 1000 9 - 2 -

pararreiff of regularization = 1W - fitting wmr (%) =4.2

TDEM data - - - - - - paramter of regularization = MX)

fltting wror (Oh) = 4 z



Test site: Dead Sea, DST2 File: i-dst2 Date: 05.04.98 Time: 15.35 SignallNoise = 4.41 Stacking nurnber = 26 Proceçsing window =200.0 rns Time constant of filtering = 10 rns Tx l k loop: eight square 40 rn

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)


- - zero 2700


-- - -

2400 7 -- - A------

2600

2500

- - - - - - - - - - - - y -


Test site: Dead Sea, DST2 File: iLdst2 Date: 05.04.98 Time: 15.35 SignaUNoise = 4.41 Stacking nurnberz 26 Processing window=200.0 ms nme constant of filtering = 10 ms TxiRx laop: eight square 40 m


190 lm pulse parameter (A-ms)

IWO

- Ë - O

. 100 + 2 '3 O '0

10 100 IWO



180 160 140 120 100 80 - €0 40

g 20 - O Y: -20 2 4 = a

-80 -lM - 1 a -140 -1 60 -180

100 IWO IWO pulse parameter (A-ms)



Test site: Dead Sea, DST2 File: i-dst2 Date: 05.04.98 Time: 15.35 SignallNoise = 4.41 Stacking number = 26 Processing window=200.0 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 rns TXlRx loop: eight square 40 m



- - - rpanstnicted signals

z - so 0 n 3 .d .- - E N m

O lm 1000 pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0

1M) pulse parameter (A-m)

decay time (m) 1 10 1M) lm

p m e r of rqularization = 2X - fiiiing error (%) =4.0, - - - paran-eterof regulanlation =MO

fitting mor (%) =5.37

TDEM data



--

Test site: Dead Sea. DST4 File i-dst4 Date: 05.04.98 lime: 17.20 SignalMise = 6.37 Stacking number = 36 Proceçsing window =200.0 rns Time constant of filtering = 10 rns Txlk loop: square 80 rn


- -zero

- -

- -

O 40 80 120 160 200. time (ms)



Test site: Dead Sea. DST4 File: i-dst4 Date: 05.04.96 Time: 17.20 SignailNoise = 6.31 Stacking number= 36 Processing window =200.0 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 mr TXlRX loop: square 80 m


IW 1Mo 1, pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

100 1Mo lm pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)



Testsite: Dead Sea, DST4 File: i-dst4 Date: 05.04.98 Tirne: 17.20 SignallNoise = 6.37 Stacking nurnber= 36 Processing window=200.0 rns Time constant of filtering = 10 rns TxlRx bop: square 80 rn


* m u T e d signal - - .. - remnstruded signais

r203 - <U -0 2 .a .- - El03 m

O lm pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0

X aveagesignal aveagenoise

z - 0 = lm .a .- - P m

O lm 1033 Iwo3 pulse parameter (A-ms)

decay time (m) 1 10 103 1 0

resistivity (ohm-m

paramder of reguiarizaiion =2M) fiiiing error (%) =6.16

TDEM data - - - - - - parameter of regulanzation = 1W

fitiing error (%) = 6.4




- - zero

- - - -

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (rns)



Test site: Nieanim. isr 21 File: isr-21 Date: 25.03.98 Time: 09.55 SignallNoise = 8.51 Stacking number=lOo Processing window 1197.9 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TXlRx bop: Square 80 rn


1W 1W IWO 1 W a pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

1W IWO 1W IWO l& pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)



M e : 25.03.98 Trne: 09.55 SignallNoise = 8.51 Stacking nurnber = 100 Processing window =197.9 rns T m e constant of filtering = 10 ms


* measurd signal - - - - reconstrucid signals



300

- 2 200 al U 5 E - g 100 m

0



0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 1 10 100 1000

O 5

1 O 15 20 25 30 35 - 40

E 45 - 5 50 % 55 U 60

65 70 75 80 85 90 95

100




Test site: Nitzanirn, isr 22 File: isr-22 Date: 25.03.98 Tirne: 12.30 SignallNoise = 3.78 Stacking nurnber = 100 Proceçsing window =197.9 ms Tirne constant of filtering = 10 rns Txlk loop: square 80 rn


- - zero 9500

9000

8500

8000

7500

7000

6500

6000

5500 5 V

a, 5000 7 s 3 - .- - 4500

t 4000

3500 - -

3000

2500

2000 - - 1500 - - - - 1000

500

O

O 40 80 120 160 200 tirne (rns)


Test site: NiQanim, i r r22 File: isr-22 Date: 25.03.98 Time: 12.30 SignallNoise = 3.78 Stasking number = 100 Procerring windowi.197.9 ms Time constant offiltering = 10 ms TxlRx loop: square 80 m


1W l o w pulse parameter (A-ms)

1W puise parameter (A-ms)


180 lm 140 lm 1W 80 80 40 20 O

-20 -40 60 -80 -lW -120 -140 -1 €0 -180




Test site: Nitzanirn, isr 22 File: isr-22 Date: 25.03.98 lime: 12.30 SignalINoise = 3.78 Stacking nurnber = 1133 Processing window =197.9 ms Tirne constant of filtering = 10 ms TxIFbc loop: square 80 rn


* measured signal X averagesignal - - - - reconstructed signals m average noise

2-400 - - z 200 a, u a, 3

u .d

3 .- - = - E 200 E 100 m m

. O O

100 1000 lm 100 1000 1000 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) decay time (ms) 0.0 20.0 40.0 1 10 100 1000 10000




Test site: Nitzanirn, isr 23 File isr-23 Date: 25.03.98 Tirne: 15.40 SignallNoise = 3.22 Stacking nurnber = 100 Processing window 497.9 m Tirne constant of filtering = 10 rns TxRx loop: square 80 rn


- - zero

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test site: Nieanirn, isr 23 File: irr-23 Date: 25.03.98 Tirne: 15.40 SignallNoise = 3.22 Stacking nurnber = 100 Pmcessing window =197.9 ms Tirne constant of filtering = 10 rnr TxIRx loop: Square 80 rn


180 160 140 120 1w 80 60 40 20 O

-M 4 -60 XI -lW -lM -140 -160 -180

1w IWO IWO pulse parameter (A-ms)



Test site: Nitzanim, isr 23 File: isr-23 Date: 25.03.98 Time 15.40 SignallNoise = 3.22 Stacking numbw = 103 Processing window =197.9 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TxlRx loop: square 80 m





0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 1 10 100 1000

parameter of regularization = 5000 iitting error (%) = 12.9

- - - m m - parameter of regularization = 500 fitüng error (%) = 11.8



Test site: Nitzanim, isr 24 File: isr-24 Date: 26.03.98 Tirne: 08.55 Signal/Noise = 6.25 Stacking number = 100 Processing window =197.9 ms Tirne constant of filtering = 10 rns TxlRx loop: square 80 rn


- - zero 7500

7000

6500

6000

5500

5000

4500 9 s - 4000 a, U 3 = - 3500 E (17

3000

2500

2000

1500

1 O00

500

O

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test site: Nibanirn. irr 24 File: in-24 Date: 26.03.98 Time: 08.55 SignaIINoi~e = 6.25 Stacking nurnber= 100 ~rocessing window =197.9 mr ~ imesonstant of fiitenng = 10 rns TxlRx loop: square 80 m

NUMlS experimental data - - - - - pulsefreqilmq

1W 1Wa 100 l w o pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

1W 1Wa 103 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse panmeter (A-ms)



Test site: Nitzanirn, isr 24 File: isr-24 Date: 26.03.98 Tme: 08.55 SignalINoise = 6.25 Stacking nurnber = 100 Processing window =197.9 ms Trne constant of filtering = 10 rns TxlRx loop: square 80 rn


* rneasured signal X average signal reconstructed signals

300 average noise

z400 - - z 200 w u w s u

s .,- .- - e - g 200 g 100 m m .

O O

l& 100 1000 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)


- parameter of regularization = 500 fiiting error (%) = 10.3 _ - - parameter of regularization = 400 iitting error (%) = 10.3

Rapport BRGM


Test site: Nitzanim, isr 24 File: isr-24 Date: 26.03.98 Tme: 11.15 SignallNoise = 6.89 Stacking number = 100 Processing window =197.9 ms Trne constant of filtering = 10 ms TxRx loop: square 80 rn


7000

6500

6000

5500

5000

4500

4000 s - w

3500 - .- - c l

3000

2500

2000

1500

1 O00

500

O

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)


Integrated geophysical approach for management and exploration of groundwater resources

Test rite: Nihanim. irr24 ~ i l e : is-a Date: 26.03.98 lime: 11.15 Signill lN~i~e= 6.89 Stacking number- 100 Pracersing window =197.9 m î l ime constant of filtering = 10 mr TxIRx IDOP: square 80m

NiJivils experimental data - - - - - pulsefreguenol

pulse parameter (A-ms) puise parameter (A-ms)


180 lm 140 120 1W 80 - 60

en 40 20 0

m 0 u> -20 2 4 - - 6 0

-80 -1 W -120 -140 -160 -180

1W 1003 IWO pulse parameter (A-ms)



Test site: Nitzanirn, isr 24 File: isr-24 Date: 26.03.98 Time: 11.15 SignallNoise = 6.89 Stacking nurnber = 100 Processing window =197.9 rns Tirneconstant of filtering = 10 rns TxIRx loop: square 80 rn


* measured signal X average signal - 600

- - - reconstructed signals average noise

zm - a> U 3 - .- - p 200 m

. O

100 lm 10000 103 1000 Io00 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) decay time (ms) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 1 10 100 lm

parameier of regularization = 500 fitting error (%) = 11.4 _ _ - - _ _ parameier of regularization = 400 fitting error (%) = 11.1



Date: 26.03.98 Tirne: 13.50 Signal\loise= 12.1 Stacking nurnber = 36 Processing window =197.9 ms Tirne constant of filtering = 10 ms


- - zero

- -

O 40 80 120 160 20 time (ms)



Test site: NiQanirn. isr 25 File: is-5 Date: 26.03.98 Time: 13.50 SignallNoise = 12.1 stacking number= 36 Pmcessing windov =197.9 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TxlRx loop: square 80 m

103 100 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

1W lwao pulse parameter (A-ms)

180 160 140 120 1W 80 6 0 40 20 O

-20 -40 -60 -80 -103 -1B -140 -160 -180

1W lm IWO pulse parameter (A-ms)



Test site: Nitzanim, isr 25 File: isr-25 Date: 26.03.98 Time: 13.50 SignallNoise = 12.1 Stacking nurnber = 36 Processing window =197.9 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 rns Tx l k loop: square 80 m



X averqesignal

600 average noise

z400 - 0 U 3 4 .- - p 200 m

O 100 1000 1000 pulse parameter (A-ms)


O O 5 5

10 1 O 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30 35 35 - 40 40

E 45 - 45 5 50 50 2 55 55

60 60 65 65 70 70 75 75 80 80 85 85 90 90 95 95

100 100

parameter of regularization = 500 fitting error (%) = 6.0 - - - - - _ parameter of regularization = 1000 fiiiing error (%) = 5.7



Test site: Nitzanim, isr 25 File: isr-2% Date: 26.03.98 Tirne: 15.00 SignaIlbise = 10.4 Stacking nurnber = 36 Processing window =197.9 ms Tirne constant of filtering = 10 ms TxiRx loop: square 80 m


- - zero 9000

8500

8000

7500

7000

6500

6000

5500

z - 5000 a, U 3 4500

.-a .- - E 4000 m

3500

3000 - A - -

2500 - -

2000

1500

1000 - - - -

500

O

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)


lntegrated geophys~cal approach for management and exploration of groundwater resources

-

Date: 26.03.98 Time: 15.00 SignaIlNoire= 10.4 Stacking nurnber = 36 Pmcessing window1197.9 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 rns TidRx loop: square 80 m

NUMIS experimental data - - .. ~~ ise f re9~mw


1000

- E - .E 100 .- 2 O w m

10

100 1000 ioooo pulse parameter (A-ms)


160 160 140 120 100 60 60 40 20

O 3 0 -40 -60 -80

-100 -120 -140 -160 -180




Date: 26.03.98 Tirne: 15.00 SignaIlMise = 10.4 Stacking nurnber = 36 Proceçsing window =197.9 rns Tirneconstant of filtering = 10 rns


* measured signal - - - _ reconstructed signals X averagesiqnal

average noise 600

zm - d) U 3 C .- - E 200 m

O

100 1000 10000 1000 1000 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) 0.0 20.0 40.0 83.0

decay time (ms)

1 10 100 1000


- - - - - - parameter of regularization = 470 fitting error (%) = 5.1



Appendix 2

(PMR results, Cyprus 1998)



Coordinates of the PMR soundings performed out in Cyprus in 1998.



Date: 11.06.98 Tirne: 10.30 SignalNoise = 19.9 Stacking nurnber = 16 Processing window=198.4 rns Tirneconstant of filtering = 10 rns


10000 $1

" " 1 1 ' " ~ " " " " '

O 40 80 120 160 20 time (ms)



Testsite: Xiiophaghou, cy-22 File: sy_ZZ Date: 11.06.98 Time: 10.30 SignallNoise = 19.9 Smcking number= 16 Processing window =198.4ms Time constant of filtering = 10 rns TxiRx Ioop: square 75 m

NUMlS experimental data - - - - .. pvlsefrequmcy

1W lm pulse parameter (A-ms)


1W l& puise parameter (A-ms)

180 160 140 1M 103 80 60 40 20 O

-20 4 M) -80 -1CO -lM -140 -160 -180

1W IWO 1003 pulse parameter (A-ms)



Test site: Xlophaghou, Q-Z File: cy-22 Date: 11.06.98 Tirce 10.30 ~ -~

~ i ~ n a l l b i s e = 19.9 Stacking number = 16 Processing window =198.4 ms Timeconstant of filtering = 10 rns T a loop: square 75 rn



100 1 O00 1 O000 1 O0 1000 1000 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) decay time (ms) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 1 1 O 100 1000

O O 5 5

10 1 O 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30 35 35 40 40 45 45 50 50 55 55 60 60 65 65 70 70 75 75 80 80 85 85 90 90 95 95

100 100

parameter of regularization = 200 fiiiing error (%) = 2.3 _ _ _ _ - - parameter of regularization = 150 fitting error (%) = 1.75



l ime: 11.30 SignalINoise = 17.3 Stacking numbw = 36 Processing window =198.0 ms T m e constant of filtering = 10 ms


- - zero

- - - -

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test site: Xilophaghou; Cy-23 File: cy-23 Date: 11.06.98 lime: 11.30 SignaIlNoire = 17.3 Stacking nurnber= 36 PrOCeELing window =198.0 rns Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TxIRx loop: Square 75 rn


l w , 100, low pulse parameter (A-ms) puise parameter (A-ms)

1w 100, 103 1Mo pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)



Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-23 File: cy-23 Date: 11.06.98 Tirne: 11.30 SignalINoise = 17.3 Stacking number = 36 Processing window =198.0 rns Tirne constant of filtering = 10 ms TxlRx loop: square 75 m


* measured signal X average signal - - _ _ reconsiructed signais average noise 600 300

z400 - - z 200 al al u -0 3 3 .?- 4 - 4 .- - .- - g 200 g 100 m m

O O 1 O0 1000 1 0000 100 1000 lm pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) decay time (ms) 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 1 10 1 O0 1000

parameter of regularization = 100 fitting error (%) =2.6

- - - - - - parameter of regularization = 1W fitting error (%) =5.1



Tirne: 12.30 SignallNoise = 9.35 Stacking number = 36 Processing window =199.7 rns Tirneconstant of filtering = 10 ms


- - zero

- - A -

- -

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test site: Xilophaghou. Cy-24 File: cy-'24 Date: 11.06.98 Time: 72.30 SignaIlNoire = 9.35 task king oumber= 36 Proce~sing window =199.7 ms Time constant offiltering = 10 mr

NUMIS experimental data - - -- - pul~efrequency

IW low pulse parameter (A-ms)


180 1w 140 120 1W 80 80 40 20 O

-20 -40 a -80 -lW -120 -140 -180 -180

1W lm 1030 pulse parameter (A-ms)



Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-24 File: cy-24 Date: 11.06.98 Tirne: 12.30 SignallNoise = 9.35 Stacking nurnber = 36 Processing window =199.7 rns Tirne constant of filtering = 10 rns TxiRx loop: square 75 rn


* measured signal X averagesignal average noise


water content (%) 0.0 20.0 40.0

O 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

100

decay time (ms) 1 10 100 1000

parameter of regularization =400 fitting error (%) = 3.9

- - m m - - parameter of regularization = 50 fiiiing wror (%) = 2.78



Tirne: 13.45 SignaliNoise = 28.9 Stacking number = 16 Processing window =199.9 rns Tirne constant of filtering = 10 rns

NUMIS experimental data - - - eCp. fit - - zero

time (ms)



Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-25 File: cy-25 Date: 11.06.98 Time: 13.45 SignallNoise = 28.9 Stacking number = $6 Processing window =199.9 rns Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TxlRx loop: square 75 m


1W 1oOo 1W pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

lb 1W 1 W o pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)



Test site: Xlophaghou, Gy-25 File: cy-25 Date: 11.06.98 Time: 13.45 SignallNoise = 28.9 Stacking number s 16 Processing window 499.9 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 rns TxlRx loop: square 75 m


* rneasured signal X average signal average noise

600

w u

0 1 00 1000 10000 100 1000 1000 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) decay time (ms) 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 1 10 100 1 000

O 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 - 40

E 45 - 50

% 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

100

paramter of regularization = 50 fitting error (%) = 1.95

- - - - - - parameter of regularization = 50 fitting error (%) = 228



Test site: Xlophaghou, Cy-26 File: cy-26 Date: 11.06.98 Tme: 14.50 SignallNoise = 6.59 Stacking number = 16 Processing window =198.3 rns Trne constant of filtering = 10 ms TxIFbc loop: square 75 m


- -

- -

- -

- -

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-26 ~ i i e : ~ 2 6 Date: 11.06.98 Tirne: 14.50 SignaIlNoire = 6.59 Stacking nvmber = 16 Piocessing window =198.3 mr Time constant of iiltenng = 10 rns TXlRx loop: square 75 m


pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse paameter (Asns)

1033

- E - a E 1W .. 5. m 0 O n

10 103 1033


180 160 140 120 1W 80 60 40 20 O

-20 4 €0 -80 -lW -120 -140 -160 -180

1W 1033 pulse parameter (A-ms)



Test site: Xlophaghou, Cy-26 File: cy-26 Date: 11.06.98 lime: 14.50 SignallNoise = 6.59 Stacking number = 16 Proceçsing window =198.3 ms Tirne constant of filtering = 10 rns TxIRx loop: square 75 m


100 1& 10000 pulse parameter (A-ms)

100 l& 1000 pulse parameter (A-ms)


0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 1 10 100 1 000

parameter of regulanzation = 1 W fitting error (%) = 3.25 - - - - - - parameter of regularization = 300 fitting error (%) = 3.V


lntegrated geophysical approach,for management and exploration of groundwater resources

Test site: Xlophaghou, Q-27 File: cy-27 Date: 12.06.98 Tirne: 09.30 SignalINoise = 2.00 Stacking nurnbw = 36 Processing window=199.2 rns Tirneconstant of filtering = 10 rns Tx/& loop: square 75 m


- - zero

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-27 File: sy-27 Date: 12.06.98 Time: 09.30 SignailNoise = 2.00 Stacking number = 36 Processing window=199.2 ms ~ i m e constant of filtering = 10 ms TxIRx ioop: square 75 m


1033

- E - m E 1W - 5, m 0 m -FI

10 1W 1033


180 la, 140 120 1W 80 a, 40 20 O

-20 -40 M) a -lW -120 -140 -la, -180

100 IWO 1033 pulse parameter (A:ms)



Test site: Xlophaghou. Cy-27 File: cy-27 Date: 12.06.98 Time: 09.30 SignallNoise = 2.00 Stacking nurnber = 36 Processing window=199.2 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 rns TxIRx loop: square 75 rn


* rneasured signal X averagesignal average noise

30

m u 3 C .-

O 100 1000 10000 100 1000 1000 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) 0.0 10.0 20.0

parameter of regularization = 300 fiiting error (%) = 18.9

- - - - - - parameter of regularization = 100 fiiting wror (%) = 19.3



Test site: Xlophaghou, Q-28 File: cy-28 Date: 12.06.98 lime: 11.15 SignalINoise = 16.0 Stacking number = 16 Processing window =198.3 mç l ime constant of filtering = 10 rns Tx/R loop: square 75 m

--. signal NUMlS experimental data - - - exp. fit - -zero

- -

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-28 File: c ~ 2 8 Date: 12.06.98 Time: 11-15 SignallNaise = 16.0 stacking number = 16 Procesring window =198.3 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TxIRx laop: square 75 m

NUMIS experimental data

puise parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

1W pulse parameter (A-rns)

180 160 140 123 1W 80 60 40 20 O

-20 -40 60 4 5 -103 -lM -140 -160 -180

1w 1003 1003 pulse parameter (A-ms)



Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-28 File: cy-28 Date: 12.06.98 Tirne: 11.15 SignallNoise = 16.0 Stacking number = 16 Processing window =198.3 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 rns TxlR loop: square 75 rn



150

- z 100 a -a 3 r - E 50 m

0

1000 lm 100 1000 lm pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) decay time (rns) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 1 10 100 1M)O

O 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 - 40

E 45 - 5 50 g 55

60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

100


- - - - - - parameter of regularization = 50 fiiting error (%) = 1.72



Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-29 File: cy-29 Date: 12.06.98 Tme: 12.00 SignallNoise = 18.0 Stacking number = 16 Processing window =198.0 m Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TxRx loop: square 75 m


6800 6600 6400 6200 6000 5800 5600 5400 5200 5000 4800 4600 4400 4200 - - 4000 3800 - - - - - 3600 3400 - .- -

n 3200 E 3000 m

2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200

O

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-29 File: cy-29 Date: 12.06.98 Time: 12.00 SignallNoise= 18.0 Stacking number= 16 Processing window =196.0 ms l ime conrwnt of filteting = 10 ms TxIRx loop: Square 75 m

NUMlS experimental data - - - - - ~ I ~ e B e ~ u e n w





Test site: Xlophaghou, Cy-29 File: cy-29 Date: 12.06.98 Tirne: 12.00 SignallNoise = 18.0 Stacking number = 16 Processing window 498.0 rns Tirneconstant of filtering = 10 rns Tx/B loop: square 75 rn


* rneasured signal X average signal _ _ _ reconstructed signals average noise 600 300

- z 400 - z 200 m m 'O -0 3 3 c c - - E 200 E 100 m m

O O 100 1000 10000 100 1032 1000 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)


0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 1 10 100 IO00

parameta of regularization = 100 fitting error (%) = 2.5 parameter of regularization = 50 fiiting error (%) = 2.17



Tirne: 12.45 SignalMise = 7.99 Stacking number = 16 Proceçsing window =198.6 rns Tirne constant of filtering = 10 rns


O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test site: Xilophaghou, Gy-30 File: sy-30 nate: 12.06.98 Time: 12.45 SignailNoise = 7.99 Stacking number = 16 ProceQSing window=l98.6 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TxIRx loop: square 75 m


pulse parameter (A-mst pulse parameter (A-ms)

O

10 1W IWO lm


180 160 140 120 1W 80 - 60 - 40 g 20 - O

-20 .c 4

60 -80

-1cc -120 -140 -160 -180




Test site: Xiophaghou, Q-30 File: cy-30 Date: 12.06.98 lime: 12.45 SignalINoise = 7.99 Stacking number = 16 Processing window =198.6 ms Tirneconstant of filtering = 10 rns TxlRx loop: square 75 rn


* measured signal X average signal - - _ _ reconstructed signal5 average noise 200 120

m m

O 100 1000 10000 100 1000 1000 pulse pararneter (A-rns) pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%)

0.0 10.0 20.0

parameter of regularization = 100 fitting error (%) = 5.65 - - - - - - parameter of regularization = 3M) fitting error (Oh) = 6.19



SignalINoise = 18.2 Stacking number = 16 Processing window =198.0 ms l ime constant of filtering = 10 rns


- - - -

time (ms)



Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-31 File: cy-31 Date: 12.06.98 Time: 13.35 l SignallNoise = 18.2 Stacking number = 16 Pr(ice5sin9 ~ i n d 0 ~ = 1 9 8 . 0 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TxRr loop: square 75 m




Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-31 File: cy-31 Date: 12.06.98 ÏÏme: 13.35 SignallNoise = 18.2 Stacking number = 16 Processing window =198.0 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TxlRx loop: square 75 m





- - - m m - parameter of regularization = 100 fitting error (%) = 3.8



Tirne: 14.30 SignallNoise = 122 Stacking number = 16 Proceçsing window =199.7 rns Tirneconstant of filtering = 10 ms

- signal NUMIS experirnental data - - - exp. fit - - zero

- - - - * .-

O 40 80 120 160 20 tirne (rns)



Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-32 File: cy-32 Date: 12.06.98 Tirne: 14.30 I SignallNoise = 12.2 Stacking number = 16 Processing window=199.7 ms Tirneconstant of filtering = 10 rns THRx loop: square 75 m

NUMlS experimental data - - - - - pulrefrequency

1W 1WO lm 1W IWO IWO pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

,,

:.:.::- , > ! , 8 ' : : ' ' 8 8 ' , ' 8

: 1 , ! I l . . 1 ! I l ! 1 j 1 8 1 - : I l 8 , , , , . . m , , , . , 8




Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-32 File: cy-32 Date: 12.05.98 Tirne: 14.30 SignallNoise = 12.2 Stacking number = 16 Processing window =199.7 rns Tirne constant of filtering = 10 rns TxIRx loop: square 75 rn



600

z 4 0 0 - al -0 x .- .- - g 200 m

0



parameter of regularizaiion = 100 fitting error (%) = 2.96

- m m - - - parameter of regularization = 50 fitting error (%) = 2.7



Test site: Xlophaghou, Q-33 File: cy-33 Date: 12.06.98 Ime: 15.20 Signal/Noise= 8.15 Stacking number = 16 Processing window 498.0 ms Tirne constant of filtering = 10 ms

loop: square 75 m


- - zero 4200

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-33 File: cy-33 Date: 12.06.98 Time: 15.20 SignallNoise = 8.15 Stacking number = 16 Processin9 window i198.0 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TxlRx loop: square 75 m

NUMlS experimental data - - - - - pulsefrequmcy

103 lb lm IW pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

1W lm 103 lb 1MX) pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)



l Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-33 File: cy-33 Date: 12.06.98 Tirne: 15.20 Sgnall~oise = 8.15 Stacking nurnber = 16 Processing window=198.0 rns Tirne constant of filtering = 10 rns TxIFix loop: square 75 rn


* measured signal X averagesignal - - - - reconstructed signais

100 1000 10000 100 1MH) lm pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0

decay time (ms)

1 1 O 100 1000

parametw of regularization = 1M) fiiiing error (Oh) = 4.38 - - - - - - parametw of regularization = 50 fiiiing error (%) = 5.0



Date: 13.06.98 SignalMise = 22.9 Stacking number = 16 Processing window =198.4 ms l ime constant of filtering = 10 ms

- signal

NUMIS experimental data - - - exp. fit - - zero

7500 7 l l 1 1 1

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test site: Xiiophaghou, Cy-34 File: cy-34 Date: 13.06.98 Tirne: 09.45 SignallNaise = 22.9 StackIng number = 16 Processing window=198.4 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TxlRx loop: square 75 m

NUMlS experimental data - - - -- D"i9efre<lUmC"

pulse parameter (A-ms) puise parameter (A-ms)


180 160 140 120 1W m - 60

& 40 g 20 - m 0 u> -20 f 4

m -80 -lW -la -140 -160 -180




Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-34 File: cy-34 Date: 13.06.98 Time: 09.45 SignallNoise = 22.9 Stacking number = 16 Processing window =198.4 ms Tirneconstant of filtering = 10 ms T x l k loop: square 75 rn


* rneasured signal X average signal average noise



O 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

100

parameter of regularization = 50 fiiting wror (%) = 1.17

- - - - - O parameter of regularization = 50 fitting error (%)= 1.12



Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-35 File: cy-35 Date: 13.06.98 Tme: 10.30 SignallNoise = 4.64 Stacking number = 16 Processing window =199.1 ms Trne constant of filtering = 10 ms TxIRx loop: square 75 m


- - zero 1800

1700

1600

1500

1400

1300

1200

1100

2 - IO00 a, 3 900 C .- - E 800 m

700

600

500

400

300

200

1 O0

O

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test rite: Xilophaghou, Cy-35 File: cy-35 Date: 13.06.98 Time: 10.30 SignallNoi~e=4.64 Stacking number = 16 ~rocessing window =199.1 ms Time constant of filtering = I O ms TxIRx 1000: souare 75 m

NUMlS experimental data .. .. .. .. .. oulsefreaumcv


100 lww pulse parameter (A-ms)


180 160 140 120 1W 80 - €0

& 40 2 20 - 0 0 a -20 f 4 = a

-80 - l W - 1 a -140 -160 -180



lnfegrafed geophysical approach for management and exploration of groundwater resources

Test site: Xilophaghou, (3-35 File: cy-35 Date: 13.06.98 Tirne: 10.30 SignalINoise = 4.64 Stacking nurnber = 16 Processing window=199.1 rns 'limeconstant of filtering = 10 rns TxlRx loop: square 75 rn


1 O0 1000 10000 1 O0 1000 10000 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) decay time (ms) 1 1 O 100 1000

O

5 1 O 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

100

parmer of regularization = 200 fitting error (%) = 17.8

- - - - - - parameter of regularization = 2W fitting error (%) = 17.6



SignallNoise = 3.94 Stacking nurnbw = 16 Proceçsing window =199.8 ms Trne constant of filtering = 10 ms


- - zero

--

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Date: 13.06.98 Time: 11.35 SignallNoise=3.94 stasking nurnber = 16 Processing window =199.8 mr nme consian1 of filtering = 10 ms TxIRx IOOP: square 75 rn


1W laocxi 1W pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

IWO

- m E -

IW .- * 2 c? ar T,

10 100 IWO


180 160 140 120 1W 80 60 40 20

O -20 -40 M) 4 3

-100 -120 -140 - 1 6 0 * . 1 : ' 8 1 . ' : : , 1

i I 1 I I I 1 i 1 1 ~ 1 1 : I

1W IWO IWO pulse parameter (A-ms)



Test site: Xlophaghou, Cy-33 File: cy-35 Date: 13.06.98 Tirne: 11.35 SignallNoise = 3.94 Stacking number = 16 Processing window =199.8 rns Tirneconstant of filtering = 10 rns T x h loop: square 75 rn


1 O0 1000 10000 pulse parameter (A-ms)

1 O0 1000 1000 pulse parameter (A-ms)


parameter of regularization = 300 fiiiing error (%) = 12.95 - - - - - - parameter of regularization =200 fiiiing error (%) = 11.3



Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-37 File: cy-37 Date: 13.06.98 lime: 12.30 SignaIlbise = 4.69 Stacking number = 16 Processing window 498.7 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms T x l b loop: square 75 m


- - zero 1700

1600

1500

1400

1300

1200

1100

5- 1000

s - a> 900 U 3 C .- - 800

E m 700

600

500

400

300

200

1 O0

O

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-37 File: cy-37 ~ a t e : 13.06.98 Time: 12.30 SignailNoire = 4.69 Stacking number = 16 Processing window =198.7 me l ime constant of filtering 5 10 m l TxlRx bop: square 75 m

NUMlS experimental data - - - -- pulrefrequency

IW lb ih IW iaCW pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

IW IWO i& IW lb pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)



Test site: Xlophaghou, Cy-37 File: cy-37 Date: 13.133.98 Time: 12.30 SignallNoise = 4.69 Stacking number = 16 Processing window =198.7 rns Tirneconstant of filtering = 10 rns TxIRx loop: square 75 rn

NUMlS inversion resul ts

rt measured signal - 120

_ _ _ reconst~cted signals

? - 80 a> -0 3 - .- - f l -", m

O 1 O0 1000 1 0000 pulse parameter (A-ms)


5 s - a> 3 20 = - E m

O 1 O0 1000 1 O00 pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) decay time (ms) 0.0 10.0 20.0 1 10 100 1000

parameter of regularization =50 fitting error (%) = 8.26 parameter of regularization =400 fitting error (%) = 8.8



Test site: Xlophaghou, Cy-3 File: cy-38 Date: 13.06.98 Time: 13.10 SignallNoise = 3.39 Stacking nurnber = 36 Processing window =199.1 ms Tirne constant of filtering = 10 rns Tx /k loop: square 75 m


- zero 6000

5500

5000

4500

4000

5- 3500 c - a, - -

3000 C .- - a E

2500

2000

1500

1 O00

500

O

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (rns)



Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-38 File: sy-38 Date: 13.06.98 Time: 13.10 SignallNOise = 3.39 Stacking numbeis36 PrOCeLsing window-199.1 m l Time constant offiltering = 10 ms TxIRx 100~: square 75 m



- Ë -

IM .- + 2 0 O .O

10 1W lm

pulse parameter (A-ms) ~ ~ ~




Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-38 File: cy-38 Date: 13.06.98 Tirne: 13.10 SignallNoise = 3.39 Stacking nurnber = 36 Processing window =199.1 rns Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TxlRx loop: square 75 m



100 1000 1M)o pulse parameter (A-ms)


0.0 20.0 40.0 1 1 O 100 1000

O 5

I O 15 20 25 30 35 40

E 45 - 5 0 % 55

60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

100

parametw of regulzization = 200 fitiing error (%) = 16.9

- - - - - - parametw of regularization =4W fitting error (%) = 16.87


lnfegrated geophysical approach for management and exploration of groundwafer resources

d

Test site: Xlophaghou, Cy-39 File: cy-39 Date: 15.06.98 Tirne: 09.40 SignalObise = 8.70 Stacking nurnber = 16 Processing window =198.6 rns Tirne constant of filtering = 10 rns T m loop: square 75 rn

- signal NUMlS experimental data - - - exp. fit -

4500 - zero

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)

Rapporl BRGM R 40368


Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-39 File: sy-39 Date: 15.06.98 Tlme: 09.40 SignallNoise = 8.70 Stacking nurnber=16 Procelsing window =198.6 rnr mme constant of filtering = 10 rns TxlRx laop: square 75 rn


100 1033 1WW pulse parameter (A-ms)





Test site: Xlophaghou, (3-39 File: cy-39 Date: 15.06.98 Tme: 09.40 SignalINoise = 8.70 Stacking nurnber = 16 Processing window =198.6 ms Tme constant of filtering = 10 rns TxRx loop: square 75 m


* rneasured signal X average signal - - _ _ reconstructed signal* average noise 300 120

z 2 0 0 - z - 80 m m V V =! .- x

Y .- - .- - $00 40 m m

O O


water content (%) decay time (ms) 0.0 20.0 40.0 1 1 O 1 O0 IO00

parameter of regularization = 50 fitting error (Oh) = 7.2 parameter of regularization = 2W fitting error (%) = 8.1



Date: 15.06.98 SignallNoise = 20.6 Stacking nurnbw = 16 Processing window =199.9 rns Xme constant of filtering = 10 rns

- signal

NUMlS experimental data - - - exp. fit - - zero

- - - -

- - - -

-

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-40 File: cy-40 Date: 15.06.96 Time: 10.25 SignallNoise = 20.6 Stacking number = 16 ~rocessing window =199.9 ms Time constant of filtering = l 0 ms TxIRx 1000: SQUare 75 m

NUMlS experimental data .. - -- - oulsefresumcv

1W pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

1W ICCO pulse parameter (A-ms)

180 160 140 120 1W 80 60 40 20

O -20 4 M) -80

-lW -lM -140

1 1 1W IWO lm




- Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-40 File: cy-40 Date: 15.06.98 Tirne: 10.25 SignallNoise = 20.6 Stacking nurnber = 16 Processing window =199.9 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms Tx/Rx loop: square 75 m


* rneasured signal - _ - reconstructed signals X average signal

averase noise

1 O0 1000 10000 1 O0 1000 10000 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0

!

1 !

i l

decay time (ms) 1 1 O 100 1000


- m m - m - parameter of regularization = 100 fiiting wror (%) = 2.7

Rappofi BRGM R 40368


Date: 15.06.98 SignalINoise = 25.1 Stacking nurnber = 16 Proceççing window =199.9 rns Tme constant of filtering = 10 ms


- -

- -

- -

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (rns)



Test site: Xilophaghou. Gy-41 File: sy-41 Date: 15.06.98 Time: 11.05 SignaIlNoire = 25.1 Stacking number= 16 Processing window =199.9 ms Time constant offiltering = 10 mr TxI& i o o ~ : Sauare 75 m


iw pulse parameter (A-ms)

180 lm 140 120 1W 80 €0 40 20

O -20 -40 a -80

- lW -1a -140 -160 -180




Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-41 File: cy-41 Date: 15.06.98 lime: 11.05 SignallNoise = 25.1 Stacking nurnber = 16 Proceçsing window =199.9 rns Tirneconstant of filtering = 10 rns TxlRx loop: square 75 rn


100 lm pulse parameter (A-ms)

1 O0 1060 pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) decay time (ms) 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 1 10 100 1MX)

parameter of regularization = 50 fitting error (%) = 2.96 parameter of regularization = 1M) fitting error (%) =4.2



Test site: Xilophaghou, Q-42 File: cy-42 Date: 15.06.98 Tme: 11.45 SignallNoise = 26.0 Stacking number = 16 Processing window =199.7 ms Tirne constant of filtering = 10 ms T x l k loop: square 75 m


- - - -

- -

- - - - - - - -

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Tert site: Xilophaghou, Cy-42 File: sy-42 Date: 15.06.96 Tirne: 11.45 Signal/Noise = 26.0 Stacking number= 16 Processing window199.7 rnr Tirne constant offiltering = I O rns TURX IOOP: square 75 rn

NUMlS experimental data --- - - ~ulsefrequency





Test site: Xlophaghou, Cy-42 File: cy-42 Date: 15.05.98 Tme: 11.45 SignallNoise = 26.0 Stacking nurnber = 16 Proceçsing window 499.7 ms Timeconstant of filtering = 10 ms TxlRx loop: square 75 m


* measurd signal X average signal - _ _ _ reconstrudd signals 600

average noise

- 5 400 O -a zl * .- - g 200 m

O



p a r d e r of regularization = 50 fitting error (%) = 0.66 - - - - - - parameter of regularization = 50 fiiiing error (%) = 2.8



SignallNoise = 12.3 Stacking nurnber = 16 Processing window =199.7 ms Tirne constant of filtering = 10 ms


- - zero

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-43 File: cy-43 Date: 15.06.98 lime: 13.00 SignallNoise 112.3 Stacking nvmber = 16 Pmcessing window =199.7 mr Time constant of filtering = 10 ms T m x 1oop: square 75 m

NUMIS experimental data

1W 1 M M 103 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

103 1003 1003 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)



Test site: Xilophaghou, Q-43 File: cy-43 Date: 15.06.98 Tirne: 13.00 Signal/Noise = 12.3 Stacking number = 16 Processing window =199.7 rns Tirne constant of filtering = 10 rns TxRx loop: square 75 rn





parader of regularization = 50 fitiing error (Oh) = 2.2 parameter of regularization = 50 fitting error (%) = 2.98



Tirne: 13.50 SignalINoise = 22.5 Stacking nurnber = 16 Proceçsing window =198.3 rns Tirne constant of filtering = 10 rns


- -zero

- - - -

- -

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-44 File: cy-44 Date: 15.05.98 Time: 13.50 SignaIlNaire = 22.5 staeking numbei= 16 ~rocessing window=198.3 mr 'rime constant offiltering = 10 ma

NUMlS experimental data --- - - pulsefrquency



180 160 140 120 1W 80 - €0 40

g - 20 0 0 3 -23 .c 4 = a

-80 -103 -123 -140 -180 -180




Test site: Xilophaghou, Q-44 File: cy-34 Date: 15.06.98 Time: 13.50 SignalNoise = 22.5 Stacking nurnber = 16 Processing window =198.3 rns Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TxIRx loop: square 75 m

NUMlS inversion reçults

* measured signal - X average signai - _ _ reconstructed signais average noise 600

O V ,

m

1 O0 1000 10000 100 1000 10000 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (O/) decay time (ms) 1 1 O 1 O0 1000

O

5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

55 60 65

70 75

80 85 90 95

1 O0

parameter of regularization = 50 fitting error (%) = 0.99 parameter of regularization = 50 fitting wror (Oh) = 1.5



Test site: Xlophaghou, Cy-45 File: cy-45 Date: 15.06.98 Time: 14.30 SignallNoise = 12.5 Stacking number = 16 Proceçsing window =198.3 ms Tirneconstant of filtering = 10 ms Tx ik loop: square 75 rn


- - zero

- -

- -

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (rns)


lntegmted geophysical approach for management and exploration of groundwater resources

1 Test site: Xilonhaahou. Cv 45 File: cv 45 1 - . .- Date: i5.06.98 rime: i4.30 SignallNoiEe = 32.5 Stacking numbersl6 PrOCesSing window =198.3 ms Time constant dfiltering = 10 ms

/ TxlRx loop: square 75 m I


103 lwoo 103 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

100 lwoo pulse parameter (A-ms)

180 160 140 120 103 80 Ml 40 20

O -20 4 6 3 a

-103 -120 -140 -160 -180




Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-45 File cy-45 Date: 15.06.98 Tirne: 14.30 SignallNoise = 125 Stacking number = 16 Processing window =198.3 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 rns TxIRx loop: square 75 m


100 1000 10000 1 O0 1000 10000 pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) 0.0 20.0 40.0

decay tirne (ms) 1 1 O 100 1000

O

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

1 O0

parameter of regularization = 50 fitting error (%) =227

- m m - - - parameter of regularization = 50 fitting error (%) =2.42



Test site: Xlophaghou, Cy-45 File: cy-45r Date: 15.05.98 Time: 13.50 Signal/Noise= 13.8 Stacking nurnber = 16 Processing window 498.3 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms T m loop: square 75 m


4400

4200

4000

3800

3600

3400

3200

3000 - - 2800

2600 5- 5 2400 a> - - 2 2200 - .- - g 2000 m

1800

1600 - -

1400

1200

1 O00

800

600

400

200

O

O 40 80 120 160 200 time (ms)



Testsite: Xilophaghou, Cy-45 File: sy-45r Date: 15.06.98 Time: 13.50 signallNoise= 13.8 Stacking number=16 ~rocessing window =198.3 ms ~ i m e constant of eltering = 10 ms TxlRx ioop: square 75 m

pulse paameter (A-ms) puise parameter (A-ms)

100 loro loro pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse paameter (A-ms)



Test site: Xilophaghou, Q-45 File: cy-45r Date: 15.06.98 Tirne: 13.50 SignallNoise = 13.8 Stacking nurnber = 16 Processing window =198.3 ms Tme constant of filtering = 10 ms Txlk loop: square 75 m


i c measured signal


water content ('/O) 0.0 20.0 40.0


150

- z 100 m .a 3 % - 2 50 m

O

1 O0 1 O00 1 O00 pulse parameter (A-ms)

decay time (ms) 1 10 100 1000

parameter of regularization = 50 fitting error (%) = 1.39 parameter of regularization = 50 fitting error (%) = 1.65



SignallNoise = 1.40 Stacking number = 64 Proceçsing window = 79.2 ms Tirne constant of filtering = 10 ms


- - -

O 20 40 60 80 time (ms)



Testsite: Xilophaghou, Cy-49 File: cy-49 Date: 18.06.98 Time: 10.00 SignallNoise = 1.40 Stacking number = 64 Processing window= 79.2 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms nfnx ioop: square 7s m

NUMlS experimental data - - - - - ~UIsefreqUQICv





1 Test site: Xiloohaahou. Cv 49 File: cv 49 1 ~-~ - ~ . ,- Date: 18.06.98 Tirne: ig.00 SignallNoise = 1.40 Stacking nurnber = 64 Processing window = 79.2 rns Tirne constant of filtering = 10 rns TxiRx loop: square 75 rn



m

100 10M) 10000 pulse parameter (A-ms)

X averagesignal average noire

120

2 - 80 m u x -. - E ", m

0 1 O0 1 O00 lm pulse parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0

O 5

1 O 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

100

pFameter of regularization = 20M) fitting error (%) = 16.7 parameter of regularization = 1M) fitting error (%) = 17.2



Test site Xilophaghou, Q-50 File: cy-50 Date: 18.OS.98 Tirne: 12.15 SignalINoise = 1.97 Stacking nurnber = 36 Processing window = 148.5 rns Tirne constant of filtering = 10 rns TxiR loop: square 75 rn

- signal NUMlS experimental data - - exp. fit

- - zero 2400

2300

2200

21 O0

2000

1900

1800

1700

1600

1500

5 1400

5 1300 al 3 1200 - .- - E Ilo0 = 1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

1 O0

O

O 40 80 120 160 time (ms)



Date: 18.06.98 Time: 12.15 SignallNoise = 1.97 Stacking number= 36 Processing window = 148.5 ms Time constant of filtering = 10 ms TXlRx loop: square 75 m

NUMlS experimental data - - - -- pulsefrequency


1W low l& pulse parameter (A-ms)

100 low laow IWO pulse parameter (A-ms) pulse parameter (A-ms)


lntegrafed geophysical approach for management and exploration of groundwafer resources

Test site: Xlophaghou, Cy-50 File: cy-50 Date: 18.06.98 Xme: 12.15 SignalB\loise = 1.97 Stacking nurnber = 36 Processing window = 148.5 rns Time constant of filtering = 10 rns TxlRx loop: square 75 rn



water content (%) 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0


60

E - 40 a -a 3 * .- - g 20 m

O 100 Io00 1000 pulse parameter (A-ms)


- - - - - - parameter of regularization = uX) fitting error (%) = 19.9



Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-51 File cy-51 Date: 18.06.98 Tirne: 13.45 SignallNoise = 1.65 Stacking nurnber = 36 Processing window = 150.0 rns Tirne constant of filtering = 10 rns T m loop: square 75 rn


- - zero 4600

4400

4200

4000

3800

3600

3400

3200

3000

2800

2600

2400

2200

2000

1800

1600

1400

1200

IO00

O 40 80 120 160 time (ms)



Test rite: Xilophaghou. Cy-51 File: cy-51 Date: 18.06.98 rime: 13.& SignsUNoise 11.65 Stacking number = 36 ~rocessing wlndow; 150.0 ms ~ i m e constant of filtering = 10 ms TxlRx IOOP: Square 75 m

NUMlS experimental data - - - - - P u I s ~ ~ ~ R I u ~ c "


1033

- E - m E 1W + 2 u m m

10 1W 1033


180 180 140 120 1W 80 80 40 20 O

-20 4 €0 -80

-1 W -lM -140 -169 -180

1W IWO IWO pulse parameter (A-ms)



Test site: Xilophaghou, Cy-51 File: cy-51 Date: 18.06.98 lime: 13.45 SignallNoise = 1.65 Stacking nurnber = 36 Processing window = 150.0 rns l ime constant of filtering = 10 ms TxIRx loop: square 75 m


* rneasured signal - - - - reconstructed signals

1 O0 1 000 10000 puise parameter (A-ms)


120

- 7 80 a,

U, - .- - 40

m

O

1 O0 1000 1 000 puise parameter (A-ms)

water content (%) decay time (ms) 0.0 10.0 20.0 1 10 100 1000

80

parameter of regularization = 20M) fitting error (%) =24.7 - - - - - - parameter of regularization = 100 fiiting error (%) =24.2


BRGM DIRECTION DE LA RECHERCHE

Laboratoire de Géophysique BP 6009 - 45060 ORLEANS Cedex 2 -Tel. : (33) 02.38.64.34.34

new integrated geophysical approach for the rational...

Documents